The law firm of the late human
rights activist, Mr. Bamidele Aturu, and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria,
Mr. Sebastine Hon, on Monday urged the about 16,000 resident doctors
sacked by the Federal Government to challenge their dismissal in court.
In separate statements, the deceased activist’s law firm and Hon, condemned the sacking, describing it as irresponsible, “unlawful and unconstitutional”.
Aturu, who died at 49 on July 9, was the lawyer who sued Lagos State Government when it sacked 788 striking doctors in May 2012.
The Lagos State Government had sacked the doctors for participating in a three-day warning strike between April 11 and 13, 2012.
A statement by the Deputy Head of Chambers, Bamidele Aturu & Co Chambers, Mrs. Chisa Anyanwu, said the doctors sacked by the Federal Government on Thursday should seek to reverse their dismissal in court.
“The sacked resident doctors can easily challenge the unsympathetic act of the Federal Government in the appropriate court and have the decision of the Federal Government reversed,” the statement read in part.
The firm added that it was ironical that the FG sacked the doctors at a time it declared National Public Health Emergency on the Ebola Virus Disease outbreak.
“It is ironical to think that the Federal Government could have declared a National Public Health Emergency on the Ebola Virus Disease outbreak on one hand, and then turn around to sack the Resident Doctors who are the Primary Health Givers on the other hand,” it said.
On his part, Hon asked the affected doctors to disregard the purported termination of their appointments and urged them to go to court if their salaries and other entitlements are withheld by government.
He gave the doctors 100 per cent victory assurance if they dared to challenge their dismissal in court.
He argued that the sacking of the doctors on the grounds of the ongoing strike embarked upon by the Nigerian Medical Association was illegal, as the right to go on strike was recognised in Nigerian laws.
He also corroborated his stance by citing a the case of Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd. vs. Edet (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 287) 288 in which he said the Court of Appeal had “held that embarking on a strike action is acceptable in law.”
He added that even though the Trade Disputes (Essential Services) Act, Cap. T9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, prohibits strike action by persons rendering essential services, including members of NMA, “this legislation has not imbued the President with any modicum of power to sack any person who has acted in breach of the Act”.
Hon said, “I make it bold, therefore, to submit that the pronouncement by the Presidency sacking those medical doctors is unconstitutional, null and void. And the law is well settled that any act or action that is null and void is deemed not to have existed at all; hence should be ignored.
“NMA members can, therefore, ignore such purported mass sack; and if their salaries and emoluments are withheld or if they are denied ingress into and egress out of their respective hospitals, they can enforce those rights in court with 100 per cent probability of success.”
According to him, the sacking was also in breach of provisions of section 40 of the Constitution, which guaranteed the right to assembly and associate freely.
He added that the Federal Government’s pronouncement also violated the provisions of the University Teaching Hospitals (Reconstitution of Boards, etc) Act, Cap. U15, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, which regulate and protect the employment of the sacked doctors.
But he also appealed to the NMA “to accede to reasonable offers from the Government and end the strike action soonest, for humane reasons”.
In separate statements, the deceased activist’s law firm and Hon, condemned the sacking, describing it as irresponsible, “unlawful and unconstitutional”.
Aturu, who died at 49 on July 9, was the lawyer who sued Lagos State Government when it sacked 788 striking doctors in May 2012.
The Lagos State Government had sacked the doctors for participating in a three-day warning strike between April 11 and 13, 2012.
A statement by the Deputy Head of Chambers, Bamidele Aturu & Co Chambers, Mrs. Chisa Anyanwu, said the doctors sacked by the Federal Government on Thursday should seek to reverse their dismissal in court.
“The sacked resident doctors can easily challenge the unsympathetic act of the Federal Government in the appropriate court and have the decision of the Federal Government reversed,” the statement read in part.
The firm added that it was ironical that the FG sacked the doctors at a time it declared National Public Health Emergency on the Ebola Virus Disease outbreak.
“It is ironical to think that the Federal Government could have declared a National Public Health Emergency on the Ebola Virus Disease outbreak on one hand, and then turn around to sack the Resident Doctors who are the Primary Health Givers on the other hand,” it said.
On his part, Hon asked the affected doctors to disregard the purported termination of their appointments and urged them to go to court if their salaries and other entitlements are withheld by government.
He gave the doctors 100 per cent victory assurance if they dared to challenge their dismissal in court.
He argued that the sacking of the doctors on the grounds of the ongoing strike embarked upon by the Nigerian Medical Association was illegal, as the right to go on strike was recognised in Nigerian laws.
He also corroborated his stance by citing a the case of Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd. vs. Edet (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 287) 288 in which he said the Court of Appeal had “held that embarking on a strike action is acceptable in law.”
He added that even though the Trade Disputes (Essential Services) Act, Cap. T9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, prohibits strike action by persons rendering essential services, including members of NMA, “this legislation has not imbued the President with any modicum of power to sack any person who has acted in breach of the Act”.
Hon said, “I make it bold, therefore, to submit that the pronouncement by the Presidency sacking those medical doctors is unconstitutional, null and void. And the law is well settled that any act or action that is null and void is deemed not to have existed at all; hence should be ignored.
“NMA members can, therefore, ignore such purported mass sack; and if their salaries and emoluments are withheld or if they are denied ingress into and egress out of their respective hospitals, they can enforce those rights in court with 100 per cent probability of success.”
According to him, the sacking was also in breach of provisions of section 40 of the Constitution, which guaranteed the right to assembly and associate freely.
He added that the Federal Government’s pronouncement also violated the provisions of the University Teaching Hospitals (Reconstitution of Boards, etc) Act, Cap. U15, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, which regulate and protect the employment of the sacked doctors.
But he also appealed to the NMA “to accede to reasonable offers from the Government and end the strike action soonest, for humane reasons”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment