BY Bolanle Olabimtan
The Nasarawa state house of assembly has asked the court of appeal in the state to upturn the judgment of a high court which cleared Aliyu Ahmed Tijani, former secretary to the state government (SSG), of fraud charges.
Tijani was indicted by the state house of assembly for allegedly embezzling N248 million out of the N1 billion awarded for the fencing and renovation of public schools during his tenure as commissioner for education.
He was also asked to refund the money.
On June 10, Abdullahi Sule, Nasarawa governor, sacked Tijani as SSG
After his indictment, the former SSG filed a suit marked: NSD/LF/46/2020, before the high court of Nasarawa state in Akwanga challenging the resolution of the state assembly.
Defendants in the suit were the state assembly, its speaker, the state governor, and the attorney-general and commissioner for justice.
In a judgment delivered on August 7, 2020, Mustapha Ramat, the high court judge, set aside Tijani’s indictment on the grounds that he was not given fair hearing by the state assembly.
He also voided Tijani’s removal from office.
However, in an appeal filed by Matthew Burkaa, counsel to the state assembly and its speaker, the appellate court was asked to reverse the decision and uphold Tijani’s indictment.
In the suit with appeal number: CA/MK/135/2020, the appellants said the trial judge erred in law by classifying the case as a fundamental rights enforcement suit.
They argued that the trial judge erred in law when “he assumed jurisdiction over the suit which sought to protect Tijani’s employment as the secretary of the government of Nasarawa state despite the provision of Section 254(C)(1) of the Constitution which vest exclusive jurisdiction on labour and employment cases on the national industrial court”.
The applicants also argued that contrary to claims, Tijani was given fair hearing and that he had explained his role in the matter both before the plenary session of the state assembly and before its standing committee on education, science and technology.
The appellants also faulted the trial judge for granting the reliefs contained in Tijani’s originating summons “despite the glaring contradictions in his affidavit before the court”.
This website uses cookies.