Ololade Adeyanju
Judgement day has been fixed to decide the fate of those who were allegedly involved in the 2014 illegal collection of N3, 000 fees from prospective members of the National Youth Service Corps Scheme (NYSC).
A Federal High Court in Lagos today fixed February 6, 2017 for delivery of judgment in the alleged mobilisation fraud suit against the NYSC.
The incorporated trustees of the Citizens Advocacy Initiative for Accountable Leadership (CAIFAL) had in June sued the NYSC, challenging collection of a N3, 000 mobilisation fees from prospective corps members.
Those joined as respondents in the legal action are the Director General of NYSC, Sidmach Technologies Ltd, Minister for Youths and Sports, and the Attorney General of the Federation.
At the resumed hearing today, counsel representing the third respondent (Sidmach), Mr Emeka Ngige (SAN), informed the court of a preliminary objection challenging the Court’s jurisdiction, and an order dismissing the suit.
He outlined eight grounds in support of a six-paragraph affidavit, urging the court to discountenance the plaintiff’s suit.
Amongst other grounds, Ngige argued that the plaintiff had not showed any cause of action, or that it had suffered any hardship in the mobilisation process for the NYSC scheme.
Arguing his counter affidavit, he said that the plaintiff was unknown to law as it was not properly so-called with its incorporated name recognised by the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).
He also submitted that the plaintiff failed to comply with the provisions of Section 20 of the NYSC Act, which requires such complaint to be forwarded in writing to the President, before a resort to litigation.
He, therefore, urged the court to strike out the suit as it failed to disclose sufficient cause of action.
His position was also adopted by other respondent counsels, who also prayed the court to strike out the suit.
In response, counsel to CAIFAL, Chief Dania Abdullahi, urged the court to dismiss the respondents’ preliminary objection to the suit. He argued that the plaintiff had sufficient cause of action.
Abdullahi said that the provision of section 254 of the Constitution gives constitutional validity to the Federal High Court. He added that the Court’s rules were a child of the constitution.
On the issue of suing in its name, Abdulahi referred the court to the provisions of sections 516 of the CAMA Act 1990, and stressed that the Act, did not specifically require the use of the words “incorporated trustees” in filing a court action.
While responding to jurisdictional issues raised by counsel from the office of the Attorney General, Mrs J.C Akah, Abdullahi argued that such objection was unwholesome.
According to him, as a law officer, the A-G must be concerned with such major issues especially as it exposes unfair practices in the NYSC scheme.
He, therefore, urged the court to dismiss all objections to the suit, award exemplary damages against the respondents, and grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
After listening to argument of counsels, the trial judge, Justice Jude Dagat adjourned the case to February 6 for judgment.
In the suit number FHC/L/CS/840/16, CAIFAL is seeking a declaration, that by virtue of the provisions of the NYSC Act, the first to third respondents have no statutory rights, to demand a pre-mobilisation fee from prospective corps members.
In its affidavit, the group alleged that sometime in 2014, the NYSC introduced an electronic registration programme, where prospective corps members were required to register online with the sum of N3, 000.
It said this was as a condition precedent for mobilisation.
It also stated that the NYSC entered into a memorandum of understanding with a company, Sidmach Technologies, to collect the fees on behalf of the NYSC, through the issuance of scratch cards to corps members.
According to the plaintiff, under the memorandum, 70 per cent of the monies collected, would be ceded to the company (Sidmach), while the balance of 30 per cent was reserved for the NYSC.
The group maintained that the company had since 2014, collected over N1.3 billion on behalf of the NYSC, without remitting any of its proceeds to the Scheme or Federation’s account; that the applicant had petitioned the office of the Minister of Youths and Sports, but the act had not been “called in”.
It added that the first, second and third respondents went into the aforesaid memorandum of understanding, without recourse to the relevant sections of the NYSC Act and the 1999 Constitution.
The group further stated that the acts of the first to third respondents, contradicts the true intent of the NYSC Act, which makes it mandatory for prospective corps members to be compulsorily mobilised for service of their fatherland.
It also stated that the Act establishing the NYSC scheme does not provide for the payment of any fee, as condition precedent for mobilisation of corps members.
The group is seeking a declaration that both the previous collection, and continued collection of the monies from prospective corps members, is illegal, wrongful and most improper.
They seek an order, directing the first and second respondents to immediately render account of all monies so far realised from corps members since the inception of its collection in 2014.
The group also seeks an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the NYSC from further collecting any money from prospective corps members, as a pre-mobilisation or re-deployment fee.
Besides, the group seeks an order, directing the first and second respondents to release or make public, the memorandum of understanding executed between the parties.