Digbori in sweet victory as DTHA directs DELSU to comply with court’s ruling

It was a sweet story of rescue for a petitioner, Dr. Ernest Diamond Besmart Digbori, when the Delta state House of Assembly (DTHA) Wednesday in a unanimous vote passed a motion for the adoption of the seven-point recommendation of the report of its Public Petitions Committee directing the Governing Council of the Delta state University, Abraka to obey and comply with the judgments of the courts which ordered the reinstatement of Dr. Digbori against his unlawful and unjust  dismissal from the service of the university by the management.

Digbori

Delivering the report of the eight-man House Committee members, the Chairman, Hon. (Mrs.) Orezi Esievo, a barrister-at-law urged the legislators to consider their recommendations as follows:

·         That the Honourable House directs the Governing council of the Delta state University, Abraka to obey and comply with the judgments of the Magistrate court, Abraka delivered on the 19^th of February, 2013 by his Worship, O.M. Omonemu (Mrs) in the matter by the commissioner of Police, Delta State Police Command v. Ernest Diamond Besmart Digbori, and of the High Court of Justice, Isiokolo delivered on the 22^nd of May, 2014, discharging and acquitting the petitioner, Dr. E. D. Besmart Digbori of all the charges brought against him by the police immediately without any further delay.

·         Reverse the dismissal and re-instate the petitioner, Dr. E.D. Besmart Digbori into the service of the university with effect from 1^st January, 2012.

·         Retire him officially with effect 31^st December, 2012, which is the official retirement date on record.

·         Pay him his gratuity having worked for 15 years and qualify to earn gratuity.

·         Pay him his monthly pension arrears to cover from 1^st January, 2013 to date and beyond.

·         Pay him his monthly salary from 1^st January, 2013 to December, 2012 being the period he was away from work,

·         Allow the petitioner, Dr. E.D. Besmart Digbori complete the M.Sc. programme in Industrial Technology which was scuttled midway into the programme as a result of his dismissal from service.  

Following a motion that the report and recommendation of the House Committee be adopted in full, the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Monday Igbuya put the question and the report and recommendations were unanimously accepted and adopted. The Speaker, said it was a thoroughly done report by the House Committee, and that there was nothing to neither add nor remove from it.

The House’s Public Petitions Committee’s report was sequel to a petition presented to the Assembly by Hon. Denis Omovie (Warri South II) on Thursday, November 26, 2015’ The petitioner, Dr. Digbori of the Department of Religious studies and Philosophy, Delta State University, Abraka, alleged in the petition that he was unjustly dismissed from the service of the university by the management. He then sought the intervention of the House of Assembly for six reliefs, all of which the Assembly adopted and passed in the report and recommendations of its committee.

Dr. Digbori had contended that his dismissal from the service of the university was not only unjust but, also a set-up by his Departmental HOD, one Dr. Kennedy Umunade, who has nursed a long standing animosity against him and has boasted several times that he will deal with him. He told the House committee that the circumstances leading to his dismissal was a sham designed to embarrass and ridicule him.

He further told the House committee while confirming his claim that “even though the allegations brought against him were criminal in nature and are not amenable to the domestic affairs of the university but only triable in a court of law, it went ahead to investigate and dismiss him consequently. For him, that was a usurpation of the functions of the court and contrary to the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended.”

Mrs. Esievo said the university was represented at the hearing and investigation of the petition by the Vice Chancellor, Prof. Victor F. Peretomode, who averred that on June 1^st, 201 the Chief security Officer of the University addressed a report to his office alleging Dr. Digbori’s involvement in academic/examination misconduct. In the report, it was alleged that Digbori collected the sum of N2,000 and N3,000 respectively from two students for the purpose of upgrading their examination scores. That whereas the score of the first student, one Aluye Chukwuemeka was to be upgraded to a ‘C’, the second student, one Emenewu Frank was to re-write Dr. Digbori’s course in his house to enable the student score a ‘B’.

The House committee quoted the Vice chancellor as saying that Digbori’s action amounted to a misconduct and violated the university’s regulations governing the service of senior staff of the university (Hatiss 6-16) (HASS 01-07), AND THAT Digbori was subsequently queried, and later handed over to the police that later prosecuted him in court, with the High Court dismissing the case in Digbori’s favour by discharging and acquitting him of the two-count charge.

In its observation, the House petitions committee observed that “It behoves on the university to comply with the judgment of the court. Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the 1999 Constitution as amended provided for separation of power where the legislative, executive and judiciary functions are vested in the State Assembly, Governor of the State, and state courts respectively.

“Specifically, section 6(6)(a)(b)(C)explained the powers of the judiciary to adjudicate on all matters between members of the public, between individual members and the government and its agencies. It follows that individuals, government, its agencies or its subsidiaries must, as a matter of Law respect, comply and obey decisions of the court. This means that decisions or order of a court of law is to be obeyed except it is manifestly contrary to the rule of Law. In which case a dissatisfied party may appeal a decision up till the Supreme Court. This is so because civilization cannot flourish in a society in which the Rule of Law is not respected.

“And throughout the period of this investigation, neither did the university dispute the authenticity of the judgments nor did it show evidence of appeal against the judgment. Furthermore, the petitioner, as soon as he got the judgment exonerating him from all the charges on 22^nd of May, 2014, wrote to the Registrar of the University on 21^st July, 2014, and attention the vice chancellor and the Chairman of the Governing council, informing them of the judgment of the High Court exonerating him of the charges brought against him with certified True Copies of the judgment attached. He has thereafter, written three other letters addressed to the vice chancellor and the chairman of the Governing Council of the university, all on the same subject.

“The university, throughout this investigation did not deny knowledge of the judgment nor the receipt of the petitioner’s continuous and repeated letters. It did not, and have not appealed the judgment two years after, neither has it responded to any of the petitioner’s continuous appeals, living the petitioner dejected, helpless and frustrated,” the petitions committee also observed.

It contended that “the university’s averment that it was not in the know and that the state legal officer who represented the state in the matter did not file and respondent brief at the High Court is neither here nor there., childish and highly irresponsible. It is not in the place of this Committee or the House to discuss the judgment of the court. Whether rightly or wrongly delivered, the principle of separation of powers forbids the House of assembly to do so.

“Mr. Speaker, even the Rules regulating the proceedings/conduct of this House forbids that we consider or attend to any matter being considered in court. And the argument canvassed by the university that it has just written to the Hon. Commissioner for Justice requesting that he files an appeal at the Court of appeal in Benin City is, in our opinion, a belated action, an attempt to ridicule and bring to disrepute the judiciary, a rape on the principle of separation of powers.”

Also, the committee observed that the university by its refusal to comply with the ruling of the Court is also in breach of its own regulations. “Same Chapter 8, section (7)(iii) reads thus: ‘In the event of any acquittal, on appeal the question of continuation in service and payment of arrears of emoluments shall be determined by the senior staff disciplinary committee’.

“The university in our opinion reneged on its promise as contained in this section of the university’s Regulations. The petitioner has been cleared from any wrong doing, and has informed the university accordingly yet, in flagrant disregard for the ruling of the court the university has refused to re-instate the petitioner.”

According to the petitions’ committee, It is amusing that the same senior staff disciplinary committee which investigated and found him culpable cannot reconvene to consider the petitioner’s reinstatement even after he has been discharged and acquitted by the Court of Law, two years after. “It is no fault of his that he was wrongly accused , charged to court and made to suffer unjustly, for an offence that has been proven by a competent court to be false,” the Committee stated, and now declared:

“It is our view that it will amount to double jeopardy to deny the petitioner his entitlements (prayers), after he has been duly cleared of any wrong doing by the court. The university should therefore, be discouraged from further disrespect of court orders, and directed to hastily comply with the judgment of the Court. We therefore submit that the petitioner who in all intents and purposes, wishes that his years of service and commitment to serving his state is not in vain, be granted his prayers, since the Court has exonerated him from all the charges brought against him.”