A Federal High
Court in Lagos has fixed February 6, 2017 to rule in a suit challenging the
legality of the mobilisation fee levelled on graduates shortlisted for the
National Youth Service.
The plaintiff in
the suit filed before Justice Jude Dagat is a rights advocacy organisation,
Citizens Advocacy Initiative For Accountable Leadership; while the defendants
are the Director-General, National Youth Service Corps; Sidmach Technologies
Ltd; Minister of Youths and Sports; and the Attorney General of the Federation.
The plaintiff is
contending that the collection of N3,000
as mobilization fee from each graduate before being posted for the National
Youth Service by the NYSC was against the intent of the NYSC Act, “which makes
it mandatory for prospective corps members to be compulsorily mobilised for
service of their fatherland.”
The plaintiff
alleged that the second defendant had, since 2014 when the mobilization fee was
introduced, collected over N1.3bn on behalf of the NYSC, without remitting any
of its proceeds to the scheme or federation’s account.
It is seeking, among
other reliefs, a court declaration that both the previous collection and
continued collection of mobilization fee from prospective corps members, is
illegal, wrongful and improper.
It is also seeking
a court order, directing the first and second defendants to immediately render
account of all the monies so far collected from corps members, in form of mobilization
fee, since 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.
At the hearing of
the case on Friday, counsel for the second defendant, Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN),
challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear the case and
urged Justice Dagat to, on that basis, dismiss the suit.
He also challenged
the plaintiff’s locus standi to file the suit, arguing that the plaintiff had
not shown that it had suffered any hardship on account of the N3,000 mobilisation fee introduced by the
NYSC
Besides, Ngige challenged
the legal standing of the plaintiff, arguing that the group was unknown to law
having not been properly incorporated pursuant to the Companies and Allied
Matters Act.
He also argued
that the suit was incompetent, having not complied with 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.
The other defence
counsel aligned themselves with Ngige’s arguments.
But the
plaintiff’s counsel, Chief Dania Abdulahi, urged the court to dismiss the
defendants’ preliminary objection to the suit, arguing that the plaintiff had
sufficient cause of action.
Abdullahi argued
that the Federal High Court was empowered by Section 254 of the Constitution to
hear his client’s suit.
He also countered
the argument that the plaintiff was unknown to law, arguing that Section 516 of
the CAMA Act 1990 did not specifically require the use of the words
“incorporated trustees” in filing a court action.
Abdullahi also
argued that rather than objecting to the suit, the AGF, as the country’s chief
law officer, should have shown concern about the mobilisation fee introduced by
the NYSC, which he described as an unfair practice.
He urged Justice
Dagat to dismiss the defendants’ objections to the suit and to award exemplary
damages against them.
After hearing the
parties out, Justice Dagat fixed February 6, 2017 for ruling.
Source: ThePunchng