The National Industrial Court has come hard on the Chief of Defence Staff, the military and the Military Pension Board for refusing to pay the death benefits and other entitlement of a female officer to her husband.
Justice Olufunke Anuwe of the Abuja Division of the court has therefore ordered the Board to immediately pay the death benefits and other entitlements of the late Flight Lieutenant Rabiat Mohammed to her husband and Next of Kin, Mr Abubakar Mohammed.
The court further ordered the Board to pay the sum of N3 million to Mr Mohammed as general damages for refusing to pay the death benefits and awarded N500,000 as costs against the Board.
The court declared that Mr Mohammed, having complied with and satisfied all requirements for the payment to him of the death benefits and other entitlements of his wife, was accordingly entitled to be paid the money.
According to court documents, Mohammed submitted that his wife, late Flight Lieutenant Rabiat, died in active service and that the Chief of Defence Staff and three others had refused to pay her death benefits and other entitlements to him despite being recognised in the records of the Nigerian Air Force as her Next of Kin.
He added that he had complied with the requirements communicated to him by the Military Pensions Board and had attended the Next of Kin Standing Committee interview with his family.
He further maintained that the requirement that he should produce a “credible family member” was not contained in the Guidelines on Administration of Military Pensions for Personnel of the Armed Forces of Nigeria.
In addition, he averred that the records of the Chief of Defence Staff and three others recognised him as the husband and Next of Kin of the deceased officer and identified Muiz Mohammed as her son and alternative Next of Kin.
In its defence however, the Chief of Defence Staff challenged the competence of the suit and filed a preliminary objection seeking, among other reliefs, an order striking out its name from the suit, an order declining jurisdiction and an order dismissing the suit for allegedly constituting an abuse of court process.
The Chief of Defence Staff contended that Mr Mohammed had earlier instituted a similar action before the Federal High Court which had subsequently been transferred to the National Industrial Court for re-assignment.
He maintained that Mohammed had not satisfied the requirements for the payment of the death benefits of the deceased officer, adding that he had not presented a credible member of the deceased’s family and had not proved that Muiz Mohammed was the biological child of the Air Force officer.
Opposing the arguments, Mohammed, through his counsel, argued that he had satisfied all the requirements necessary for the payment of the death benefits and that the Chief of Defence Staff could not impose additional conditions which were not contained in the Guidelines.
Delivering judgment, Justice Anuwe dismissed the preliminary objection of the Chief of Defence Staff and held that the suit did not constitute an abuse of court process, noting that the matter before the court was the same suit transferred from the Federal High Court for re-assignment and was not a separate action instituted by Mohammed.
Justice Anuwe held that the Guidelines on Administration of Military Pensions for Personnel of the Armed Forces of Nigeria provide for the Next of Kin Standing Committee to invite and conduct interviews for NOKs for the purpose of verifying the genuineness of the NOK and ensuring the correctness of the documents submitted.
She held that the Guidelines did not require the Next of Kin to attend the interview with a family member of the deceased officer and that the Military Pensions Board could not unilaterally impose an extra condition on Mr Mohammed which was not stated in the Guidelines.
Justice Anuwe further held that requiring another family member of the deceased to be produced to verify Mr Mohammed was an unnecessary bottleneck placed by the Chief of Defence Staff and three others.
She stated that Mr Mohammed had met the requirements for payment of his wife’s death benefits, as the Chief of Defence Staff and three others, apart from the allegations concerning the production of a family member and proof of the child’s relationship with the deceased, had not identified any other outstanding requirement.
She declared that the Military Pensions Board, or any of the defendants, does not have the right to interfere in how the death benefits of Mr Mohammed’s deceased wife are shared, utilised or disposed of by him.
