NAN-H-39
NYSC
By Sandra Umeh
Lagos, Dec. 9, 2016 (NAN) A Federal High Court in Lagos on Friday fixed Feb. 6, 2017 for judgment in a suit against the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) over alleged mobilisation fee fraud.
Incorporated trustees of the Citizens Advocacy Initiative for Accountable Leadership (CAIFAL) had in June sued the NYSC, challenging its collection of N3, 000 as mobilisation fee.
Joined in the suit are the director-general of the NYSC; Sidmach Technologies Ltd., minister of youths and sports and the attorney-general of the federation.
At the resumed hearing of the case on Friday, Counsel to Sidmach Technologies, Mr Emeka Ngige, (SAN), told the court of a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction and an order to dismiss the suit.
Ngige argued that the plaintiff had neither showed any cause of action nor had it suffered any hardship in the mobilisation process for the NYSC scheme.
He argued that the plaintiff was unknown to law as it was not properly called with its incorporated name recognised by the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).
He 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 resorting to litigation.
Ngige urged the court to strike out the suit as it failed to disclose reasonable cause of action.
The position of Ngige was adopted by the other respondents’ counsel.
In response, counsel to CAIFAL, Chief Dania Abdulahi, urged the court to dismiss the respondents’ preliminary objection, arguing that the plaintiff had sufficient cause of action.
Abdulahi argued that the provision of Section 254 of the Nigerian Constitution gave constitutional validity to the Federal High Court.
“The federal high court rule is a child of the constitution.’’
On the issue of suing in its name, Abdulahi said that Sections 516 of the CAMA Act, 1990, did not specifically require the use of the words “incorporated trustees” in filing a court action.
Responding to jurisdictional issues Abdulahi said that such an objection was unwholesome.
According to him, as a law officer, the attorney general 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, award exemplary damages against the respondents and grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
After listening to argument of counsel, the trial judge, Justice Jude Dagat, adjourned the case to Feb. 6 for judgment.
In the suit numbered, 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 avers that sometime in 2014, the NYSC introduced an electronic registration programme, where prospective corps members were required to register online with N3, 000.
It said that it was as a condition precedent for mobilisation.
It averred that the NYSC entered into a memorandum of understanding with a company, Sidmach Technologies, to collect the fees on its behalf, 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.
It averred 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 the federation account.
It averred that the applicant had petitioned the office of the minister of youths and sports but that the Act had not been “called in”.
It further averred 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 said the acts of the first to third respondents, contradicted the true intent of the NYSC Act, which makes it mandatory for prospective corps members to be compulsorily mobilised for service of their father land.
They averred that the Act establishing the NYSC scheme did not provide for the payment of any fee, as condition precedent for mobilisation corps members.
The group is therefore, 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 sought 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.
The group also sought an order, directing the first and second respondents to release or make public, the memorandum of understanding executed between them and the company. (NAN)
UNS/EOB/SN
===========
Edited by Edith Bolokor/Silas Nwoha