President Muhammadu Buhari has confirmed the sacking of the embattled Managing Director of the Nigerian Ports Authority, Hadiza Bala-Usman.
The confirmation was contained in an affidavit filed before the Federal High Court in Lagos in a suit by the Chief Executive Officer of Maritime Media Limited, Asu Beks, and two other plaintiffs on July 12.
The three plaintiffs in the suit are Asu Beks, Tompra Abarowei and Miebi Senge.
The plaintiffs also named President Buhari, Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amaechi; Hadiza Bala-Usman, and the Chairman of the NPA Board, Emmanuel Adesoye
In suit marked FHC/L/CS/485/2021, the plaintiffs are challenging the propriety of Buhari’s powers to constitute the NPA Board and appoint the Executive Directors without recourse to the NPA Act.
The plaintiffs further alleged that Buhari reappointed Hadiza Bala-Usman, six months to the expiration of her tenure.
But the President has countered the suit in a preliminary objection filed by Agan Tabitha of the Civil Litigation Department of the Federal Ministry of Justice, Abuja, on behalf of Buhari’s lawyer.
In the preliminary objection, Buhari, stated that the reappointment of Hadiza Bala-Usman has since been terminated, adding that the instant suit was overtaken by the event of the termination.
Speaking through his lawyer, the President insisted that Asu Beks lacks the locus standi to file the matter on the grounds that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The President said, “We submit that it is clear from the Plaintiffs’ affidavit, the questions for determination as well as the reliefs sought. It is obvious that the Plaintiffs neither suffered any injury as a result of the act or omission of the 1st Defendant (Buhari).
“It is also evident that the claim against the Defendants is that the court should declare the alleged action of the 1st Defendant re-appointing, nominating and setting up of board of NPA illegal as it contravenes sections 2 and 10 NPA Act Cap N126, LFN 2004, even without stating that they have suffered any personal damage beyond any other person as a result of the said appointment.
“It is our submission that the Plaintiffs here do not possess the requisite locus standi to institute this action. Locus standi denotes the right of a party to institute an action in a court of law.”
