68 NAICOM staff challenge sack in court

By Ifeanyi Ugwuadu
Sixty-Eight sacked staff of the National Insurance Commission, have dragged the Commission and its Commissioner for Insurance, Mr Fola Daniel, before a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, challenging their sack from the commission.

They also alleged in the suit that they were relieved of their appointments by Mr Daniel, the Commissioner for Insurance for leaking information of corrupt practices in the Commission, which  led to the indictment of his alleged cronies currently facing charges in court but who surprisingly are still in the employment of the Commission.

The affected workers are praying the court to declare that the defendants lack the requisite power to carry out any restructuring exercise without the relevant approvals.

But unofficial sources at NAICOM told Vanguard that the allegations in the suit are not different from what the affected employees had canvassed at the National Assembly. According to the source, the issue of bypassing due process had been defended by the Commission as there was ministerial approval before the restructuring.

It was also learnt from the source that letters of their disengagement had been signed out and they have been collecting it in addition to their gratuity and monthly pensions.

The suit instituted by the employees is the last resort after several attempts by the labour ministry, Ministry of Finance and the National Assembly failed to resolve the dispute.

Therefore, the plaintiffs seeks among other things, a declaration that the “ongoing restructuring/reform exercise being carried out by the defendants is ultra vires, null and void and of no effect whatsoever, the defendants having failed to obtain the necessary approvals or observe the proper procedure laid down by the Guidelines for the Reform of Government Parastatals.”

They also want the court to declare unlawful the “purported termination” of their employments and “an order compelling the defendants to forthwith reinstate the plaintiffs to their various duty posts.”

The claims of the employees also include “an order compelling the defendants to pay the plaintiffs all their monthly salaries and allowances starting from the date of last payment until their employments are properly determined” and “n order compelling the defendants to release forthwith its statutory contributions to the plaintiffs’ Pension Funds and all deductions made from the plaintiffs’ various monthly salaries for the purposes of Pension Fund which

were never remitted, to their various Pension Fund Administrators and their contributions to the National Housing Fund which were deducted monthly from their salaries”.

According to them, Mr Fola Daniel is the immediate past and last CEO of Globe Reinsurance Corporation. Due to gross mal-administration and mismanagement, his company was refused recapitalization during the 2005-2007 insurance recapitalization exercise by the 1st Defendant. When he was appointed as the Commissioner about a year after the said recapitalization exercise, he vented vindictiveness on those he believed carried out the exercise in which his company failed to meet up.

They contended that Mr Daniel unilaterarily engaged the services of H. Pierson to carry out his aforementioned plan without seeking the necessary approval from relevant authorities, while some of the plaintiffs are innocent witnesses to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Commission (ICPC) in the ongoing prosecution of some of his (Daniel ) indicted crews.

They argue that Daniel  believed that the plaintiff are responsible for the leakage of information on the corrupt Practices in the Commission which has led to the indictment of his cronies who are currently facing charges in court but who surprisingly are still in the employment of the Defendants despite the “ongoing exercise”.

According to them, if there is anybody whose appointment should be disengaged from the service of National Insurance Commission, it should be those officers currently facing criminal charges in court and not innocent witness to ICPC.

The sacked workers are further contending that some of them are less than six years in the service of the defendants and were fresh graduates prior to their engagements and it will be most unfair and unjust to expose them to the irking world of unemployment and search for menial jobs, more some are Chartered

Accountants, Chartered Insurers, Economists etc with untainted records of service and they constitute the main nucleus of the 1st defendant. They include a

Director, two Deputy Directors, eight Assistant Directors and others in the service of the defendant. Amongst them are 4 Masters Degree Holders, 2 Chartered Accountants, 4 Chartered Insurers (in addition to degree and diplomas) two 2nd Class Upper Holders in Economics, one Computer Scientist with BSc in Computer Science etc, whereas the 2nd Defendant’s highest educational qualification is a diploma in Insurance.

The affected workers argued that they were not affected by the 2002 to 2007 government induced Restructuring/Reform exercise duly approved by the Former President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo in conjunction with the Bureau of Public Service Reforms and other relevant agencies. This exercise ended in 2007 and that the ongoing restructuring exercise embarked upon by the defendants leading to the disengagement of the plaintiffs is being carried out without the relevant approvals or the laid down procedures.

They said that after the said 2002 to 2007 Restructuring/Reform Exercise, only 148 persons were left in the service of the Commission and after the illegal ousting of the Plaintiffs, only 80 persons were left in the employment of the Defendants and  after the illegal ousting of the plaintiffs from the service of the defendant, their various jobs were given out to service contractors to perform in their stead on contractual bases for outrageous amounts, while the deductions made from their various monthly emoluments by the defendant as contributions to Pension Fund,  were not fully remitted to their Pension Fund Administrators.

According to them, the defendants have also been deducting money from their  various monthly emoluments as contribution to National Housing Fund and as tax due and payable to the government but surprisingly, no house was made available to them and no tax clearance or tax certificate was issued to them despite repeated demands on the defendant and failure of the defendants to give them  their various tax clearances has deprived them of several opportunities to use same in their various legitimate pursuits and endeavors.