The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has dismissed the appeal filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against its former employee, Abraham Akoji Abutu, holding that the Commission unlawfully dismissed him from service.
In a unanimous judgement of a three-member panel of justices of the appellate court delivered by Justice Okon Abang in EFCC v. Abraham Akoji Abutu, Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/563/2023, the court reaffirmed the supremacy of statutory procedure over administrative expediency.
Justice Abang held that, having failed to comply with the Public Service Rules and having predicated its disciplinary action upon an invalid staff handbook, “The EFCC lacks the authority to dismiss an officer of the respondent’s grade level, being an established pensionable staff member and a public servant.”
Justice Abang, while considering the competing formulations of issue one advanced by the parties, held that the trial court gave the appellant a fair hearing when it expunged the written statement on oath tendered by DW1 together with the exhibits attached thereto and decided the matter based on the evidence adduced by the respondent.
“Whether the trial court was correct in rejecting the statement on oath of DW1,” he said, and applying the settled doctrine of stare decisis and the binding force of Supreme Court authority, the appellate court held that the trial court fell into error when it expunged DW1’s written statement on oath together with the documentary exhibits tendered through him.
Justice Abang observed that the Supreme Court’s decision in Katungu v. Umar had fundamentally recalibrated the legal position regarding objections to written depositions on oath.
Drawing extensively from the apex court’s pronouncement, he noted that where a party seeks to challenge the competence of a witness’s written statement on oath on grounds of technical defect, such objection must be taken at the point of adoption and not reserved for the final address.
“In this case, counsel raised the objection in the written address, but the Supreme Court held that where there is a technical defect, the objection must be raised at the point when the witness seeks to adopt the written statement on oath.”
Upon a careful examination of the record, the court found that the respondent raised no objection when DW1 adopted his written deposition.
Justice Abang consequently held that “it was therefore wrong for the trial court to have expunged DW1’s written statement on oath together with the documents tendered through him.”
“The decision of the trial court is set aside. DW1’s statement on oath is restored. The appellant’s documents are restored,” the court held and accordingly resolved issue one in favour of the EFCC.
On the respondent’s issue two: “Whether the reinstatement of DW1’s statement on oath, if allowed, would materially affect the decision of the trial court.”
While the EFCC urged the Court of Appeal to remit the matter to the trial court for a fresh evaluation of the restored evidence, the respondent invited the appellate court to invoke its statutory powers and determine the controversy itself.
Justice Abang observed that the trial court’s failure to evaluate the evidence was not attributable to judicial neglect or omission, but rather to the prevailing state of the law at the time the judgement was delivered.
Justice Abang observed that the trial court’s failure to evaluate the evidence was not attributable to judicial neglect or omission, but rather to the prevailing state of the law at the time the judgement was delivered.
“The court hereby declines the application of the appellant to remit the case back to the trial court. The court now assumes jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal Act,” Justice Abang held and proceeded to interrogate the substantive merits of the appeal.
He held that the EFCC failed to adduce any evidence—whether through oral testimony, cross-examination or documentary exhibits—to establish compliance with the Public Service Rules prior to dismissing the respondent.
The court identified fundamental defects in the instrument upon which the Commission purportedly relied and held that, “There is no indication that the EFCC Staff Handbook, which the appellant used as an instrument to dismiss the respondent from service, was validly approved or signed.
“Beyond this, there is no commencement date showing that it was approved by the Commission in compliance with Section 9(2) of the EFCC Act,” and added that the reinstated evidence of DW1 did not alter the legal position.
Justice Abang observed that, “There is nothing in the reinstated evidence of DW1 indicating that the Public Service Rules were complied with by the EFCC. The EFCC lacks the authority to dismiss an officer of the respondent’s grade level, being an established pensionable staff member and a public servant,” and resolved issue two in favour of the respondent and against the EFCC.