The controversy
over who is liable to pay the severance packages of retired judicial
officers of the Oyo State judiciary was laid to rest yesterday after a
court ruled that it is the responsibility of the state government to
pay the entitlements of jurists who served in the state till their
retirement.
The trial judge,
Muktar Ladi Abimbola, made the clarification on Thursday while
delivering his judgement on a suit filed by 11 retired judges of the
State High Court, who dragged the state governor, Adebayo Alao-Akala,
and the state Attorney-General before him over the government’s refusal
to pay their severance gratuities.
The plaintiffs –
Nurudeen Adekola, Olayiwola Adio, Ruth Oyetunde, Afolabi Adeniran,
Olagoke Ige, Karimu Jimoh, Lambe Arasi, Akin Sanda, Atilade Ojo, Simon
Akintola, and Theophilus Adeniran (deceased) – comprise three former
Chief Judges, two acting Chief Judges, and six other judges, who worked
with the state’s judiciary throughout their careers as judicial
officers.
In their
originating summon, the claimants are asking the court to determine
four points that bother on whether the state government had not erred
in law by not paying the money; whether they actually have the right to
be paid the money; whether, having served meritoriously and retired
from the state’s judicial service, the government has the right to
refuse the payment of the gratuities; and whether the deprivation does
not entitle them to compensation on the withheld money.
They also seek the
relief of the court, if the posers are determined in their favour, to
order that they are entitled to be paid the gratuity to be based on
300% of the annual basic salary of each of them while in service, and
that the gratuities be paid with interest from the date of their
respective completion of service till the date of judgement.
Other consequential
reliefs the claimants sought were an order to compel the government to
pay the severance gratuities immediately and that an annual interest of
21% be paid on sums from the date they were due to the day the
judgement was delivered, as well as further 10 % interest from the day
of judgement delivery till the contents are fully satisfied.
‘Just pay up’
While delivering
his verdict which lasted less than an hour, the presiding judge agreed
with the entire arguments of the claimants as well as their grounds of
claims.
He also set aside
the preliminary objections raised by the state government to excuse
itself from paying the retired judges’ gratuities.
Represented by
Abdulahi Olawale, a principal legal officer in the state ministry of
justice, the government posited that the claimants are entitled to the
controversial package, but that it did not believe it has the
responsibility to pay them. It rather submitted that the burden is on
the National Judicial Council (NJC) who determines how the salaries of
serving judicial officers are paid.
The state also
opined that the applicants did sue the wrong person in their
application as, according to it, they should have sued the NJC and the
state Chief Judge, who heads the courts and executes orders of the NJC
in the state.
Besides, it
contends that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit,
and consequently sought for the dismissal of the suit.
But the judge said
he had considered all the existing laws and available evidences shown
by the claimants and was satisfied by their arguments.
The judge looked at
the aspects of law which provided for the payment of the severance
packages, letters from the NJC, headed by the Chief Judge of the
Federation, as well as evidences of compliance from some states across
the country.
He concluded that
the “defendant (state government) erred by withholding the severance
gratuities of the applicants”, granted all the reliefs of the
claimants, and gave orders that they must be complied with forthwith
and immediately.
Lambe Arasi, who
spoke on behalf of the applicants, said they never wanted to take the
matter to court, but said they had no option when the governor, Adebayo
Alao-Akala, refused to listen to the voice of reason.
He said he did not
only refuse to align with the provisions of the law, all appeals to
make him avert the embarrassment the consequence of legal action would
cause the state was rebuffed by him.
Asked what would
happen if the governor refuses to obey the orders, Mr. Arasi said he
does not have an option, adding, “we know what to do, he has to obey
this one.”
