Alex Enumah in Abuja
Intels Nigeria Limited has dragged the federal government before the Federal High Court in Abuja over the government’s deportation of about 102 of its expatriate staff in Nigeria.
Intels Nigeria Limited has dragged the federal government before the Federal High Court in Abuja over the government’s deportation of about 102 of its expatriate staff in Nigeria.
The company in the legal battle initiated by its counsel, Adeniyi Adegbonmire (SAN), has therefore sought an order of court, granting it leave to apply for judicial review of the decision taken by the Comptroller General of Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS), revoking the residence/work permits of 102 expatriates in its workforce.
The Comptroller General of NIS, Muhammed Babandede, had on November 15, 2015, issued statement announcing the revocation of the residence/work permits of Intels expatriate staff in Nigeria.
He also issued a directive that the said persons should leave the Nigerian territory on or before November 30.
He also issued a directive that the said persons should leave the Nigerian territory on or before November 30.
Intels is owned by former Vice-President, Atiku Abubakar, who recently dumped the President Muhammadu Buhari-led ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) party for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1180/2017, which was dated November 24, 2017, and filed on behalf of Intels by Adegbonmire, has the Comptroller General as the only respondent.
It was brought pursuant to Order 34 Rule 3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009.
However, the matter which was for mention yesterday, could not go on due to the absence of legal representation for the respondent.
The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1180/2017, which was dated November 24, 2017, and filed on behalf of Intels by Adegbonmire, has the Comptroller General as the only respondent.
It was brought pursuant to Order 34 Rule 3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009.
However, the matter which was for mention yesterday, could not go on due to the absence of legal representation for the respondent.
Counsel to Intels told the court that hearing notice and the order asking the respondent to show cause why the reliefs being sought by the applicant should not be granted were served on the immigration boss.
Responding, the trial judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, adjourned the matter to January 10, 2018.
Some of the reliefs sought by the applicant include a declaration that the decision of the Nigerian Immigration Service “is unlawful, unconstitutional, wrong and void ab initio.”
Responding, the trial judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, adjourned the matter to January 10, 2018.
Some of the reliefs sought by the applicant include a declaration that the decision of the Nigerian Immigration Service “is unlawful, unconstitutional, wrong and void ab initio.”
In addition, Intels wants the court to declare that the respondent acted ultra vires when he proceeded to issue or authorised/directed the issuance of a statement dated November 15, 2017 with reference No. NIS/HQ/PRU/267/V.1 to the effect that the residence/work permits of the expatriate staff of Intels, stand revoked, and further issuing a directive that the said persons shall leave the territory of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on or before November 30, 2017, without first giving the applicant or the said persons the opportunity to be heard.
Others are: “A declaration that the failure of the respondent to communicate with the applicant or to formerly notifies the applicant of his decision as herein before stated prior to the revocation or purported revocation of the residence/work permits of the expatriate staff of the applicant is unlawful and wrong.
“An order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent, as conveyed in the Nigeria Immigration Service press release dated November 15, 2017 with reference NIS/HQ/PRU/267/V.1 and written under the hand of the Service Public Relations Officer of the NIM upon the directions and authorisation of the respondent, by reason of the fact that the said decision is illegal, procedurally unfair, unconstitutional, unreasonable and /or irrational.
“An order of certiorari quashing the respondent’s decision to revoke the residence/work permits of the expatriate staff of the applicant on the grounds that the decision offends against the constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing of the applicant.
Intels is therefore praying for an order of mandatory injunction compelling the Comptroller General of Immigration to immediately reverse the revocation directive issued against the expatriates and to immediately restore/reissue to them, their residence/work permits.
Intels predicated the suit on the grounds that the decision was a violation of their right to fair hearing as under the 1999 Constitution, because they were denied the opportunity of making representation to the respondent before the decision to revoke the residence/work permits of its 102 expatriate staff.
The company said the decision of the respondent as contained in the said press release by Immigration Service on Nov. 15 is ultra vires the statutory powers of the respondent as contained in the Immigration Act 2015, published as Legal Notice nos. 77 in vol 102, FRN Official Gazette of June 8, 2015.
The company said the decision of the respondent as contained in the said press release by Immigration Service on Nov. 15 is ultra vires the statutory powers of the respondent as contained in the Immigration Act 2015, published as Legal Notice nos. 77 in vol 102, FRN Official Gazette of June 8, 2015.
According to Intels, if the federal government is allowed, the operation of Intels will be severely jeopardised and state of hopelessness foisted upon the court in the event that Intels expatriate staff totaling 102 are deported from Nigeria before the hearing and the determination of the action which Intel intends to file challenging the decision of the respondent as it concerns the revocation or purported revocation of the residence/work permit of its expatriate staff.
The firm in addition said, the respondent had threatened to recommend to the Minister of Interior that its expatriate staff be deported any day after November 30, thereby foisting the state of hopelessness upon the court in view of impending suit to challenge the decision.
Comments
Post a Comment