The National Industrial Court sitting in Abuja has upheld the sack of a former deputy director at the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), Yisa Usman, from service.

The court also awarded costs in the sum of N250,000 against Usman in favour of the examination body in the judgment delivered on June 2, 2026 with Suit No: NICN/ABJ/ 266/ 2023.

Daily Trust reports that Usman, a deputy director in the Finance Department of JAMB, was in July 2023 relieved of his employment over alleged gross misconduct and willful disobedience to constituted authority.

The former JAMB employee later headed to the Industrial Court to challenge the termination of his employment, arguing that he was denied a fair-hearing before he was dismissed.

But the presiding judge at NICN, Abuja, Justice Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae, ruled that his dismissal was lawful and fully complied with the board’s staff manual.

In the Certified True Copy of the judgment, a copy of which was obtained by our Correspondent on Friday, the judge noted that Usman had responded to queries and was given ample opportunity to attend disciplinary meetings but chose not to appear.

The judge stated, “The Supreme Court in the case of Imonikhe v Unity Bank Plc (2011) 4 SC (Pt 1) 104 at 135 ; (2011) 12 NWLR ( Pt 1262) 624 at 640 held that where an employer accuses an employee of misconduct by way of a query and the employee answers the query before the employer takes a decision on the employee’s appointment, that satisfies the requirement of fair hearing.

“The Claimant was issued with queries on misconduct, and by his own evidence, he gave detailed responses in writing to the queries. The Defendant was not satisfied with his response and invited him to appear before the Committee.

“The Claimant was given 4 days to appear before the Committee. By his own choice, he refused to appear before the Disciplinary Committee. Fair hearing is simply ‘hear the other side’.

“I find that the Claimant was given a fair hearing in the issuance of queries, in the consideration of his responses and in the invitation to appear before the Disciplinary Committee.”

The court also rejected Usman’s argument that the Minister of Education had no powers to approve his dismissal in the absence of a Governing Board of JAMB.

Justice Obaseki-Osaghae held that since the same Minister could approve his promotion which he accepted, he also has the powers to approve his dismissal.

“In the absence of a Governing Board, the Management seeks for directives and approvals from the Ministry. Evidence of this can be seen in the approval by the Honourable Minister of the Claimant’s promotion to the position of Deputy Director with effect from 1st January 2017 ( Exhibit D2).

“He did not complain that the Minister had no powers to approve his promotion then; how can the Claimant now challenge the approval given by the Minister for his dismissal?

“The power of the Minister to approve the dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the Defendant is statutory, and contained in Section 6 of the JAMB Act reproduced above; and I so hold.

“The authority of the Minister to approve the Claimant’s dismissal in the absence of the Governing Board is valid and within his supervisory powers to direct the Defendant Board.”

Justice Obaseki-Osaghae ruled that Usman was not dismissed for his alleged whistleblowing activities but for gross misconduct.

She said, “The reasons stated by the Defendant for the Claimant’s dismissal are his responses to allegations of serious misconduct, and his refusal to appear before the Board’s Directorate Staff Disciplinary Committee.

“Now, this Committee also comprised two Directors from the Federal Ministry of Education, the supervising Ministry. The Claimant’s decision not to appear at the disciplinary hearing was his own choice.

“The reasons stated in the dismissal letter are unrelated to his whistleblowing activities. The Claimant’s complaints and petitions to Federal Ministry of Education, the EFCC, ICPC, various anti corruption agencies of Government, and human rights organisations against the Registrar and the Board alleging failure to follow financial regulations, due process, corrupt practices, and discrimination (Exhibit C5, E1 to E33) were investigated by the anti-corruption agencies of Government and found to be unfounded as seen in Exhibits DS, D10 and D12.

“By the Claimant’s own admission in paragraph 23 of his additional deposition, the Registrar was exonerated from all the allegations and given a clean bill of health, and by extension the Board.

“After the Claimant was dismissed, the Police charged him to Court in January 2024. From the totality of the evidence adduced, I find that the conduct of the Claimant is grave and weighty.

“He willfully disobeyed constituted authority. This eroded and undermined the confidence reposed in him by the Defendant to carry out his duties.” (Daily Trust)

Update news