[8-Year Tenure Policy] Court Validates Compulsory Retirement Of FIRS Former Director

The Hon. President of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Benedict Kanyip, PhD has declared that the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) is not bound by the Head of Service circular dated 20th June 2016 on the suspension of the 8-year director tenure policy in the federal civil service.

The Court further held that the President in authorizing the circular restricted its application to the Federal Civil Service, not public service and since the FIRS is not the Federal Civil Service or part of it, such circular has no application to the agency.

Justice Kanyip held that the compulsory retirement of Mr. Victor Ekundayo by the FIRS despite the Federal Government Circular on the suspension of the 8-year tenure rule for directors is lawful, legal, and right.

From facts, the claimant- Mr. Victor Ekundayo had submitted that he was compulsorily and prematurely retired from the service of the 1st defendant after serving for 10 years as director against the Federal Government circular suspending the 8-year Tenure Policy “in the Federal Civil Service” in 2016.

He continued that the FIRS is chained to the whims and caprices of the Federal Government and lacks the powers to choose which of the Federal Directives it should or should not comply with, urged the Court to hold that his compulsory retirement was founded on nothing since the provision of the FIRS HPRR ceased after the suspension of the Tenure Policy; and that the retirement exercise done to him is in futility, of no moment, wrongful, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever

To the FIRS, Mr. Victor Ekundayo was lawfully compulsorily retired under the FIRS Human Resource Policies on the provision that all Directors who had served eight (8) years and above, that the FG circular/letter was only addressed to the agency for its information and the content of the circular pertains to the Tenure Policy in the Federal Civil Service and not the Public Service of the Federation.

It is the FIRS submission that the control of the agency in matters of policy with regard to the exercise of the functions of the Board is vested in the Minister of Finance and not the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.

FIRS urged the court to decline jurisdiction on the ground that the suit is statute-barred having been instituted outside the three (3) months required by virtue of the Public Officers Protection Act and the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act.

In reply, the learned counsel to Mr. Ekundayo maintained that the FIRS HPRR, FIRSEA, and other FIRS Rules were in force before the Federal Government exercised its constitutional right in 2016 by the suspension of the tenure policy from the PSR, urged the Court to dismiss the submissions of the FIRS as they lack merit and substance.

Delivering the judgment after careful evaluation of the submission of both parties, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Benedict Kanyip dismissed the objections raised by the FIRS for lacking merit.

Justice Kanyip held that the mere receipt of such a circular does not mean its applicability that it’s first and foremost for information; and for its applicability, it must be specifically adopted by the FIRS and there is no evidence before the Court that this has been done.

The Court continued that the particular “control, tenets and circulars of the Federal Government of Nigeria as issued by the Office of the Head of Service of the Federation” must be identified in order to determine whether the FIRS would thereby be bound.

“A staff in the public service of the Federation may not necessarily be a staff in the civil service of the Federation. Members or officers of the armed forces, for instance, are staff in the public service of the Federation, but not in the civil service of the Federation.

“Staff of educational institutions established or financed principally by a Government of the Federation are staff in the public service of the Federation, but not in the civil service of the Federation. And this remains so despite that educational institutions come within the directional control of the Ministry of Education.” Justice Kanyip ruled.