The National Industrial Court in Abuja has affirmed the dismissal of former Deputy Director of Finance at the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), Yisa Usman, ruling that the examination body acted within the law and followed due process in terminating his appointment.
In a judgment delivered on June 2, 2026, in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/266/2023, the court dismissed Usman’s claims that he was denied fair hearing and unlawfully removed from service. The court also ordered him to pay N250,000 in costs to JAMB.
Usman was dismissed from the board in July 2023 over allegations of gross misconduct and willful disobedience to constituted authority. Following his removal, he approached the court seeking reinstatement, arguing that disciplinary procedures were not properly followed and that he was unfairly targeted.
However, presiding judge, Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae, held that the evidence before the court showed that JAMB complied with the provisions of its staff regulations and afforded the claimant sufficient opportunity to defend himself against the allegations.
According to the court, Usman received several queries regarding the allegations against him and submitted written responses. He was subsequently invited to appear before a disciplinary committee to provide further explanations but declined to attend the proceedings.
The judge emphasized that the principles of fair hearing do not necessarily require physical attendance if an employee has already been informed of allegations and given the opportunity to respond. Citing established judicial precedents, the court held that the issuance of queries and consideration of written responses satisfied the constitutional requirement of fair hearing.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae further noted that the claimant’s refusal to appear before the disciplinary committee was a personal decision and could not be used as a basis to challenge the outcome of the disciplinary process.
The court also addressed Usman’s contention that the Minister of Education lacked the authority to approve his dismissal in the absence of a governing board for JAMB. Rejecting the argument, the judge ruled that the minister’s powers are derived from the relevant provisions of the JAMB Act and remain valid when the governing board is not in place.
The judgment pointed out that the same ministerial authority had earlier approved Usman’s promotion to the rank of deputy director, a decision he accepted without objection. Consequently, the court held that he could not selectively challenge the minister’s authority only when it related to his dismissal.
Another major issue considered by the court was Usman’s claim that his dismissal was linked to whistleblowing activities and petitions he had submitted against JAMB management. The former official had alleged financial irregularities, breaches of due process, corruption, and discriminatory practices within the board.
However, the court found no evidence supporting the claim that the dismissal was retaliatory. It noted that investigations conducted by agencies including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) did not substantiate the allegations made against JAMB’s leadership.
According to the judgment, the investigations cleared the board’s management of wrongdoing, including allegations directed at the Registrar of JAMB. The court therefore concluded that the disciplinary action taken against Usman was based on misconduct-related issues rather than any whistleblowing activities.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae described the claimant’s conduct as serious and incompatible with the standards expected of a senior public officer, noting that acts of insubordination and refusal to comply with lawful directives undermine institutional discipline and public confidence.
Legal analysts say the ruling reinforces the principle that public institutions have the authority to discipline employees for misconduct provided established procedures are followed and the affected officer is given a reasonable opportunity to respond. The judgment is also expected to serve as a reference point in future disputes involving disciplinary actions, fair hearing requirements, and the limits of whistleblower protections within public service institutions.
The decision marks the conclusion of a closely watched employment dispute and underscores the judiciary’s continued emphasis on procedural compliance and accountability within government agencies.
