Buhari, AGF, and Others Charged with Unlawful Interference in NDDC

By Adeleye Kunle

President Muhammadu Buhari and four others have been charged in a Federal High Court in Abuja with interfering with the operations of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC).

President Muhammadu Buhari, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), and Minister of Justice, the Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs, and the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs are the first to fifth respondents in the suit brought by an aggrieved Niger Delta indigene from Imo State.

The suit was filed by an Abuja-based lawyer, Mr. Felix Ekengba, who claimed that the respondents lacked the legal authority to intervene in the day-to-day operations of the NDDC, as the Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Mr. Umana Umana, had done.

The plaintiff accused the Minister of Niger Delta Affairs of illegally assuming control of the Commission in violation of the law in a suit filed on August 19.

As a result, the plaintiff in the case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1458/2022 asked the court for an order prohibiting the respondents from interfering with the Commission’s activities in the future.

The plaintiff specifically requests that the court prohibit Umana from acting as NDDC’s MD or interfering with the agency’s operations in the future because he lacks the legal authority to do so.

Other reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the suit filed on his behalf include a declaration that, under Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 2 of the NDDC’s Act, 2000, the Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs, and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry, who are not among the people named in Section 2 of the NDDC’s Act, cannot interfere with or usurp the powers of the board and management of the commission without an amenity.

Ekengba also sought a declaration that the 3rd to 5th respondents’ interference and intervention were contrary to and in violation of Section 4 of the Constitution and Section 2 of the NDDC Act, and that any purported acts performed by them are unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and should be set aside.

He also requested a perpetual injunction prohibiting the third through fifth respondents from interfering with, usurping, controlling, or issuing directives to the NDDC’s management and staff.

In a 16-paragraph affidavit he deposed to in support of the suit, Ekengba, who claimed to be an environmental rights activist, a legal practitioner, and a Niger Delta indigene, claimed that the alleged unlawful interference of the Minister in the operations of the commission was affecting him.

He also claimed that Buhari, as President of Nigeria, who swore to uphold the provisions and tenets of the 1999 Constitution, was obligated to ensure the enforcement and compliance with all National Assembly Acts, including the NDDC.

He also claimed that the Minister of Niger Delta Affairs was assisting and abetting the president in violating the clear and existing provisions of the 1999 Constitution by attempting to interfere or usurp the powers of the NDDC’s board and management in violation of Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 2 of the NDDC’s Act.

Plaintiff claimed that Buhari amended the provisions of Section 2 of the NDDC Act by appointing the Niger Delta Minister, Niger Delta Ministry, and Permanent Secretary of the Ministry as NDDC governing board members without amending the law to accommodate them.

He claimed that in order to carry out the unconstitutional fiat, the Minister, Ministry, and Permanent Secretary wrote a letter to the NDDC on August 8, 2022, requesting a personnel audit and bio-data of the commission.

The legal practitioner also claimed that the third to fifth respondents established a committee on the NDDC’s compressive staff audit in a letter dated August 15, 2022, and that the Minister issued directives on the day-to-day running on August 17, contrary to the clear position of the law.

Insisting that what the third through fifth respondents were attempting to do was unconstitutional, the plaintiff asked the court for an order prohibiting the respondents from interfering, usurping, controlling, or issuing directives to the NDDC’s management and staff in violation of Section 4 of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, no hearing date has been set in the case.