Senator Ararume Criticizes NNPC’s Appeal As Abuse Of Court Process, Calls For Dismissal With Costs

*Defends Court’s Jurisdiction, Urges Dismissal of NNPC’s Appeal on Grounds of Misnomer

Senator Ifeanyi Ararume has described the appeal filed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) as an abuse of court process. The appeal seeks to overturn the judgment of a Federal High Court that ordered his reinstatement as the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of the newly formed NNPCL.

Ararume’s legal team, led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, filed a brief of argument on July 31, 2023, asserting that the appeal by NNPCL lacks merit, is incompetent, and a waste of the court’s time, calling for its dismissal with substantial costs.

On April 18, Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, had ordered Ararume’s immediate reinstatement as NNPC Chairman, declaring his removal by former President Muhammadu Buhari as illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void, and subsequently nullified the president’s action.

The court also directed the defendants, including Buhari, NNPC Ltd, and the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), to pay Ararume N5 billion as damages for the unlawful removal from his position as NNPC Board Chairman.

In response, NNPCL approached the Court of Appeal, Abuja, challenging the decisions and orders of Justice Ekwo delivered on April 18, 2023. The appellant’s brief of argument, dated June 30 and filed on July 3, presented 18 grounds to challenge the trial court’s entire decision.

NNPCL, through its lead counsel, Mr. Yusuf Ali, SAN, urged the appellate court to set aside the judgment in favor of Ararume, arguing that the trial court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appellant claimed that the suit was statute-barred, and the trial court misapplied relevant statutory provisions, leading to wrong decisions.

The appellant further contended that Ararume failed to provide convincing and compelling evidence to support his suit and that the trial court should not have entertained the suit on Originating Summons.

NNPCL argued that the president was within his rights to remove Ararume as Board Chairman, as provided by the constitution, PIA 2021, and NNPCL’s Memorandum and Article of Association.

Regarding the mode of commencement of the suit, NNPCL asserted that the trial court should not have granted the declarative reliefs in favor of Ararume, as he did not offer sufficient evidence to support his claims or prove his entitlement to the claim.

In response to the appeal, Ararume challenged its competency, pointing out that the brief of argument was filed by a non-party in the suit. He argued that the proper appellant before the Court of Appeal should be the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Ltd, which he sued, and not the entity that filed the brief of argument.

Ararume urged the court to dismiss the appeal with substantial costs, stating that the trial court acted within its constitutional and statutory jurisdiction when it entertained, heard, and determined his suit against NNPC, former President Muhammadu Buhari, and CAC.

Ararume argued that his case arose from the operation of the appellant as a corporate entity incorporated under the CAMA 2020.

He also refuted the applicability of Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act and Section 307 of the PIA 2021 to the suit as statutes of limitation. Ararume maintained that the elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not a Public Officer and that the Public Officers Act is meant to protect officers from detraction and unnecessary litigation, not to deprive parties of legal capacity to seek justice.

Furthermore, Ararume asserted that the mode of commencement of the suit was appropriate, considering it involved the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions, with no hotly contested facts.

He emphasized that all necessary parties were before the court, and the right to fair hearing of any non-party was not breached.

Ararume concluded that the court below was correct in granting the reliefs sought, as they were proved in accordance with the law, and there was no defense against them.