Disengaged staff sue CBN, demand compensation

A legal battle is brewing between the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and its former employees, who were dismissed in a series of mass termination of appointments earlier in 2024.

The retrenched staff alleged that the apex bank violated internal policies, Nigerian labour laws, and their contractual rights.

Represented by Stephen Gana and 32 others, the claimants filed a class-action lawsuit at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), Abuja.

The court documents claimed that their termination exercise, issued through letters titled “Reorganisational and Human Capital Restructuring”, dated 5 April 2024, contravened Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution and the CBN Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual (HRPPM).

• Troops gun down hoodlums who ‘killed’ soldiers in Rivers
• Police rescue 4 children stolen from Bauchi in Anambra

The claimants argued that the process lacked the required consultation and fair hearing mandated by law.

The originating summons, filed pursuant to the NICN Civil Procedure Rules 2017 on 4 July 2024, outlines several questions for the court’s determination, chief among which is whether the claimants were denied their constitutional right to a fair hearing before and after the termination of their appointments.

They further contended that the termination letters, issued on the grounds of “restructuring,” were arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional.

The dismissed employees are seeking judicial declarations that their terminations are null, void, and of no effect, insisting that they remain employees of the apex bank.

They also demanded their immediate reinstatement, payment of salaries and benefits from the date of termination, and a restraining order against any further attempts by the CBN to dismiss them outside due process.

The court filing references Article 16.4.1 of the HRPPM, which mandates consultation with the Joint Consultative Council and adherence to fair procedures before employment actions adversely affect staff.

The claimants alleged that this provision was flagrantly disregarded, as they were given just three days to vacate their positions and hand over official property.