The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court on Tuesday dismissed a suit seeking to invalidate the appointments of the current managing director and executive directors of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) by President Bola Tinubu.

Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the case.

Mr Omotosho held that the proper party to initiate the case was the attorneys general of the states, being the chief law officers empowered to sue on behalf of the states or appoint a private lawyer.

“The plaintiffs have no right to litigate a matter of public interest where the attorney general is available and not complaining,” the judge said.

He further held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims, adding that they should have shown the quantum of oil produced in each oil-producing state.

The judge held that the plaintiffs also failed to provide evidence of the manner and status of appointments into NDDC management positions since the commission’s inception to substantiate their claims.

“This is simply an assertion without proof. This court is handicapped in going to the merits of this case,” he said.

Mr Omotosho consequently dismissed the suit.

Ajoku Philip, Jones Omereoha, and the Incorporated Trustees of Kingdom Human Rights International Foundation, who claimed to be acting on behalf of the oil-producing communities in Imo State and a few states, had filed the suit.

The applicants sued the Nigerian president, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the National Assembly, and the NDDC in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1374/2023.

They had urged the court to compel Mr Tinubu to withdraw the nominations of Samuel Ogbuku, Boma Iyaye, Victor Antai, and Ifedayo Abegunde as managing director and executive directors of the NDDC, respectively.

They demanded that the president appoint indigenes of oil-producing communities from Imo, Cross River, and Edo, who they alleged had not previously held these positions, as mandated by section 12(1) of the NDDC Act.

The applicants argued that appointments to NDDC management positions over the years had allegedly favoured some oil-producing states over others, contravening relevant laws.

They also prayed for a declaration that sections 4 and 12(1) of the NDDC Establishment Act were compulsory in appointing the commission’s chairman, managing director, and executive directors, among other reliefs.

However, the NDDC, in its counter affidavit, disagreed with the applicants.

It argued that section 12(1) of the NDDC Act provides for “adequate representation,” which had always been observed in the commission’s appointments.

It further argued that only the governors of oil-producing states could make such complaints, as they are recognised representatives of their citizens.

The other defendants submitted that only state governors, through their AGs, are in a proper position to sue the NDDC over any alleged infractions.

(NAN)