Court rejects reinstated lecturers’ new demands

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has rejected a request for sabbatical leave pay from 49 lecturers of the University of Ilorin, who were reinstated by the same court in 2009 after being unjustly expelled for eight years.

The lecturers had asked the court to instruct the university to pay them for sabbatical leave covering the period of expulsion. But the judges unanimously turned down the request, describing it as frivolous. Students and teachers have supported the court decision.

The 49 lecturers, known as the ‘Ilorin 49’, were dismissed on 15 May 2001. After a long court battle, in June 2009 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the university should reinstate the lecturers, as due process had not been followed.

The university council, the judges found, had not given the lecturers an opportunity to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against them for joining a national strike called by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and launched on 15 May 2001.

The court ordered the university to pay full salaries and allowances for the period during which the lecturers were sacked. The university complied and the ASUU hailed the court for its forthrightness and courage.

However, there has been unhappiness over clauses in the verdict and more court action, this time over sabbatical entitlements.

In interpreting the verdict, the lecturers’ counsel Toyin Oladipo said that under university law, senior lecturers and professors are entitled to one full academic year of sabbatical every six years. He argued that since the lecturers were rusticated for eight years, from 2001-09, they should be paid the sabbatical allowance covering this period.

The university disagreed and headed to court for an interpretation of this section of its ruling.

Nigerian universities, staff and students have been keenly following the case. The verdict was very important because no university has paid out sabbatical allowances to fired lecturers who have been subsequently reinstated.

The panel of judges led by Mohammed Mahmud ruled that the lecturers’ demand for sabbatical allowance was unreasonable. The allowance was not included in the original judgment, which only covered lecturers’ salaries and other allowances.

Mahmud turned to Oladipo, the lecturers’ lawyer, and said: “Put your heads together. Bring sanity to the legal profession. This is indiscipline.” He advised Olapido to avoid further steps that would embarrass the judiciary.

Another panel member, Afolabi Fabiyi, who took part in the drafting of the initial verdict, recalled vividly that the judges had not provided for payment of a sabbatical allowance. He was angered by the lecturers’ further demands.

“Sabbatical when you were not around for eight years?” he said, and told Oladipo not to take instructions blindly and to ensure that his clients abide by the law. “What you are doing is immoral.”

There was silence from ASUU officials, unlike the jubilation on campuses following the 2009 verdict reinstating the 49 lecturers.

A member of the ASUU national executive council, who pleaded for anonymity, explained that the union’s response to the latest court action had been cold and most members doubted it would succeed.

There was a process involved in sabbatical leave, he explained, involving application to an appointment and promotion committee – a sub-committee of council – formal acceptance by another university of the sabbatical applicant, and council approval.

No sabbatical applications had been sent by the ‘Ilorin 49’ because they were deemed expelled. And with no sabbatical leave, the university could not be mandated to pay a sabbatical allowance. Further, the sabbatical allowance is often part-paid by the university where the lecturer is serving sabbatical leave.

“I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court that the Ilorin 49 is not entitled to sabbatical allowance”, he said.

Christiana Adakwu, a member of the national executive of the National Association of Nigerian Students, regretted that the lecturers had pushed their luck. “These lecturers cannot be paid for services they did not render. I agree with the judges that the demand for sabbatical allowance is ridiculous and unacceptable,” she said.

Students and staff on most campuses expressed similar opinions and supported the court’s position on the matter.