As ABU, Zaria Jubilates Case Dismissed, Plaintiff, his Counsel heads to Appeal Court

Reference to the judgment which was conveyed in a press statement to newsmen by Director, Public Affairs Directorate, Ahmadu Bello University, Dr Isma’il Shehu  on the Case between Jamilu Auwalu Adamu (Plaintiff)  vs Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (1st Defendant), Dr. Abubakar Yahaya, Statistic Department (2nd Defendant) and Professor Babangida Sani, Mathematics Department (3rd Defendant) by Hon. Justice M. S. Shua’ibu, FHC, Kaduna, Jamilu and his Counsel SULE SHUA’IBU, heads to Appeal Court.
It would be recalled according to the Jamilu’s claims filed against ABU, Zaria (1st defendant), Dr. Abubakar Yahaya (2nd defendant) and Professor Babangida Sani (3rd defendant) with the suit number: FHC/CS/84/2017  dated 9th July, 2017 stated that “15. The Plaintiff avers that the 2nd Defendant(Dr. Abubakar Yahaya, Statistics Department, ABU) instructed him to publish the research findings in a reputable journal (local or international) or present it at any academic conference with a view to ascertain the quality of the work”. 
“20. The Plaintiff avers that after the 2nd Defendant carefully went through the journal particularly the Plaintiff’s RESEARCH FINDINGS, he (the 2nd defendant) stated HARASSING and INTIMIDATING him (the Plaintiff) that how dare the Plaintiff publish a research without making him (the 2nd defendant) a CO-AUTHOR of the paper”.
Further”23. The Plaintiff avers that the 2nd Defendant further told the Plaintiff in the presence of the Plaintiff’s younger brother, Bashir Auwal Adam, that since the Plaintiff refused to make him a co-author in the Plaintiff’s published research findings, the 2nd Defendant will CONNIVE with his academic peers in VICTIMIZING and FRUSTRATING the Plaintiff within the University to make sure that the Plaintiff does not successfully complete his PhD Studies”.
According to Jamilu and his learned Counsel SULE SHUA’IBU ESQ , former NBA CHAIRMAN, KADUNA STATE said they are able to adequately established that Jamilu was INTIMIDATED, HARASSED, VICTIMIZED and FRUSTRATED caused him serious suffering and psychological trauma, the 2nd Defendant was ineligible as Lecturer I to supervise PhD Student according to according to the Regulations Governing Higher Degree Studies and Prospectus of Postgraduate Studies 2014-2017 SPGDS vis –a- vis the PLAINTIFF’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS before the HONOURABLE JUSTICE S. M. SHUA’IBU in the following TEN (10) solid EVIDENCES among others:
1- The 2nd Defendant (Dr. Abubakar Yahaya) HARASSED, INTIMIDATED and VICTIMIZED the Plaintiff as cited “ACCUSED the Plaintiff’s personality in his letter to VC dated 22/03/2016 (Exhibit PLF 14) that the plaintiff (candidate) was having DUBIOUS, DECEIFUL, TREACHEROUS, ILL-INTENTIONS TO CHEAT, UNFOUNDED, MISCHIEVOUS PETITION …to obtain an ABU Doctoral degree he doesn’t earn and is CLEARLY NOT CAPABLE OF EARNING. The 2nd Defendant ACCUSED the plaintiff’s INNOVATION in his letter to VC dated 22/03/2016 (Exhibit PLF 14) thereby calling the plaintiff’s research “SUBSTANDARD RESEARCH”, “READY-MADE RESEARCH WORK looking for a University to rubber-stamp his degree” in paragraph 41 on OATH and called “JAMEEL’S MODELS” a “BIG BLUNDERS” under METHODOLOGY of Exhibit PLF 19. The 2nd Defendant has ACCUSED the JOURNAL in paragraph 19 on OATH which is in line with the Plaintiff’s petition to ICPC Exhibit PLF 5 and also please see the 2nd Defendant’s paragraphs 17, 22, and 42 of statement on OATH.
2- “The 2nd and 3rd (Professor Babangida Sani) Defendants ADMITTED that they ACCEPTED to supervise the Plaintiff as a PhD Student and that they ALL CORRECTED exhibits PLF 18, 19 and 20 respectively but never returned to the plaintiff until when they were put on notice to produce before honourable Court”.
3-“The 2nd Defendant (Dr. Abubakar Yahaya) ADMITTED that he has SIGNED Exhibit PLF 4 (Student’s Course Registration Form) in THREE (3) DIFFERENT PLACES and that OBVIOUSLY and CLEARLY, ONE out of which duly SIGNED and STAMPED by the 2nd and 3rd DEFENDANTS as MAJOR and MINOR SUPERVISORS respectively of the plaintiff”.
4- “The 2nd Defendant (Dr. Abubakar Yahaya) ADMITTED that as at 23rd December, 2014, he was LECTURER I and that Lecturer I is NOT QUALIFIED to be MAJOR SUPERVISOR of a Ph.D Candidate according to Section 2.4.2, paragraph 5 and 6 of Exhibit PLF 8 (1st Defendant’s Prospectus of PG Studies, 2014 – 2017) and Exhibit PLF 6 (Regulations Governing Higher Degree Studies)”.
5- The 2nd Defendant (Dr. Abubakar Yahaya) in his letter to VC dated 22/03/2016(Exhibit PLF 14) stated that “…The HOD then suggested…would provide a COVER for me as the CHAIRMAN, supervisory committee pending when my promotion to SENIOR LECTURER is actualized; as only academic staff assuming the rank of senior lecturer and above are allowed to be chairman supervisory committee for any PhD Candidate in the University”.
Items 1 to 5 are humbly before  the Honourable Court, in his judgement HONOURABLE S. M. SHUA’IBU, stated that “BEING A STUDENT IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE CLAIM. The Plaintiff is consequently lacks the locus to institute this proceedings as he was no longer a student at the time he did”.
6-In paragraph 28 of the 2nd Defendant’s (Dr. Abubakar Yahaya)  witness statement on OATH stated that “it was in OCTOBER, 2016 that I moved to the newly created Department of Statistics: THE 3RD DEFENDANT WAS ASSIGNED AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PLAINTIFF SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE”. That the 3rd Defendant WAS NOT A CHAIRMAN of the plaintiff’s supervisory committee FROM 23 DECEMBER, 2014, 16:19:16 TO OCTOBER, 2016, the 2nd DEFENDANT (Dr. Abubakar Yahaya) was the CHAIRMAN of the plaintiff’s supervisory committee from 23 DECEMBER, 2014, 16:19:16 to OCTOBER, 2016”. 
While, in his ruling HONOURABLE S. M. SHUA’IBU stated that ” the plaintiff ceased to be a student of the University since 10th May, 2015 by his own conscious act of omission; and consequently he lacked the locus standi to institute the proceeding as he was no longer a student at the time he did.The court, equally, rejected the argument that the plaintiff became aware of his withdrawal by a letter from the 1st defendant to the plaintiff’s solicitors in reply to enquiries made relating to the status of the plaintiff with the 1st defendant.
Justice Shuaibu said “those so-called enquiries were made two years after the plaintiff had voluntarily withdrawn from the institution by his conscious and deliberate omission to register for 2014/2015 academic session”.
7- “The 2nd Defendant (Dr. Abubakar Yahaya) on 4th July, 2017 as LECTURER I was ASSIGNED to supervise the following PhD STUDENTS as CHAIRMAN SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE on the document entitled “Restructured Allocation of Supervisory Committees f or PhD Statistics Candidate” (please, see Exhibit PLF 10)(i) IBRAHIM IBRAHIM YUSUF: P16PSST9001(ii) ABDULLAHI UMAR KABIR: P16PSST9051
8-“The 2nd Defendant (Dr. Abubakar Yahaya) has not possessed a relevant DOCTORAL DEGREE IN MATHEMATICS nor did he demonstrate research interest in three (3) relevant publications in proceeding three (3) years, that he violated section 2.4.2, paragraph 5 and 6 of Exhibit PLF 8. The 2nd Defendant (Dr. Abubakar Yahaya) was not competent and eligible to serve as the Plaintiff’s MAJOR SUPERVISOR being Lecturer I attached to DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS while the plaintiff is a Ph.D student of the DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS”.
9- “The PRACTICE of 1st Defendant is that postgraduate students pay their REGISTRATION FEE via INSTALLMENT PAYMENT and in a case of DEFAULT to pay their all OUTSTANDING REGISTRATION FEE at the end of their programs. And that even as at December 08, 2017 (when the plaintiff had been already withdrawn from the 1st Defendant), the plaintiff’s student registration portal was still active indicated (“You haven’t made payment for 2014/2015”) in the DATA BASE of the 1st Defendant”.
 10- “The Plaintiff stated that he has COMPLETED HIS PHD THESIS having produced and PUBLISHED ELEVEN (11) NOW SIXTEEN (16) PAPERS IN THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS (out of only two required papers by the 1st Defendant) all out of his PhD Research Findings. And that they all satisfied paragraph 9, page 9 of Exhibit PLF 6”.
Items 1 to 10 are before the Honourable Court, in his judgement HONOURABLE S. M. SHUA’IBU, “On the whole, this case lacks merit. The reliefs sought by the proceeding are refused. The suit itself is hereby dismissed”. The judgment, consequently, awarded N50,000 cost to each of the three defendants (the University and two other academic staff) making a total of N150,000 cost against the plaintiff.
It would be recalled the case of MONICA OSAGIE VS. OAU PROFESSOR RICHARD I. AKINDELE AUDIO RECORDING LEAKED ONLINE AND WENT VIRAL ON SOCIAL MEDIA had JURISDICTION in the FEDERAL HIGH COURT, OSOGBO, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2018 and that OAU PROFESSOR RICHARD I. AKINDELE was sentenced to SIX (6) YEARS JAIL TERMS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.CNN Report of Wednesday May 23, 2018 stated that “The OAU authorities say they have lunched on Investigation into Osagie’s allegations and Akindele has been SUSPENDED pending a final decision by the University”. Further OAU stated that ”it will continue to do everything LEGALLY and MORALLY acceptable in pursuarance of  it’s avowed commitment to zero tolerance for SEXUAL HARRASSMENT, INTIMIDATION and or, COERCION”.
OAU University Senate committee finding stated that “Professor Akindele operated in a position of POWER and AUTHORITY over Miss Osagie and as such sexually harassed her”. On June 20, 2018 the University announced the DISMISSAL of Mr. Akindele after he was found guilty of misconduct”. Consequent upon OAU established WHISTLE-BLOWER POLICY among others. Please, Professor Richard Akindele was arraigned before the FEDERAL HIGH COURT, OSOGBO ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2018 and was SENTENCED TO 24 MONTHS JAIL-TERM for asking Monica for a Sexual benefit and handed him another 24 MONTHS JAIL-TERM for soliciting from the victim sexual benefit to pass her, ANOTHER 12 MONTHS JAIL-TERM FOR DELETING PARTS OF THE WHATSAPP CONVERSATION between him and Miss Osagie to conceal evidence against him and sentenced him to ANOTHER 12 MONTHS JAIL-TERM FOR FALSIFICATION OF AGE. THE SIX (6) YEARS JAIL TERMS ARE TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.
While in his judgment HONOURABLE S. M. SHUA’IBU ruled that “The suit is therefore not initiated by due process of the law. This consequently affects the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and adjudicate over same”.

Leave a Comment