The President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Benedict Kanyip, has withdrawn from presiding over lawsuits filed by 62 former employees of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) following a potential conflict of interest.
Kanyip made the decision during a court session on Tuesday after discovering that one of the lawyers representing the CBN was his in-law. He explained his decision, stating that his relationship with the lawyer could compromise the impartiality of the proceedings.
The cases, filed individually by the former employees, challenge the termination of their appointments, which took effect on May 24, 2024. The ex-staff members argue that their dismissal, conveyed in a letter titled “Reorganisation,” violated the provisions of the CBN Act of 2007 as well as the bank’s Human Resource Policies and Procedure Manual (HRPPM). They have described the termination as “arbitrary, unlawful, null, and void.”
In their legal submissions, the claimants are seeking several remedies. These include a declaration that their employment contracts remain valid, an order to reverse their terminations, and reinstatement to their roles or equivalent positions. They are also demanding full payment of salaries, allowances, and other entitlements that would have accrued had their employment not been terminated.
Tuesday’s court session included 31 of the 62 cases, with the remaining set for Wednesday. The claimants’ lawyer, Ola Olanipekun, also submitted a motion to consolidate all the cases for efficiency.
When the first case was called, Obafemi Agaba, representing the CBN, announced that the bank was being defended by a consortium of law firms, including Damian Dodo & Co. At this point, Kanyip revealed that Damian Dodo was his in-law. Citing the potential for a conflict of interest, he stated his discomfort in continuing with the case and officially stepped aside.
Before recusing himself, Kanyip sought the views of the claimants’ counsel on the matter, ensuring transparency. The judge subsequently announced that the cases would be reassigned to another judge for adjudication, underscoring his commitment to ensuring fair and unbiased proceedings.
