The National Industrial Court (NICN) has ordered the Federal Government to reinstate Prof. Monday Igwe as the Medical Director of Federal Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Enugu State, after holding that the purported termination of his appointment was unlawful, null, and void.

The court thereafter voided the appointment of Dr Unaogu Ngozihukwu Nneka as the substantive Medical Director of the Federal Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Enugu State, during the pendency of the suit, describing it as overreaching and unlawful.

Justice Emmanuel Subilim, who delivered his judgement in suit marked NICN/ABJ/130/2024, held that the claimant, Prof. Monday Igwe, had successfully proven his case against the defendants.

Justice Subilim specifically issued an order directing the reinstatement of the claimant as the Medical Director of the institution, listed as the 6th defendant, to complete his remaining three years and five months’ tenure of office.

In the judgment delivered on December 11, 2025, the court further granted an order directing the payment of the claimant’s emoluments from September 2023 until the date of delivery of the judgment.

Listed as 1st to 7th defendants in the suit are: the Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare; the Minister of State for Health and Social Welfare; the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare; the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF); the Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare; Federal Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Enugu, Enugu State; and the Medical Director, Federal Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Enugu State, Dr. Unaogu Ngozihukwu Nneka.

According to the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment dated December 23, 2025, Justice Subilim held thus: “From the foregoing comprehensive analysis and having carefully weighed the evidence on the preponderance of probabilities, the court finds that the claimant has discharged the heavy burden of proof placed upon him.

“The procedure adopted for the purported termination of the claimant’s appointment was arbitrary, illegal, and a fundamental breach of the mandatory statutory provisions and regulations governing his employment.

Consequently, the termination is hereby declared null and void, and of no effect whatsoever.

I so hold.”It follows, therefore, that the reliefs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) as sought by the claimant hereby succeed in their entirety.

On relief (h), which is a claim of general damages, the court held, “From the evidence before this court, the salary of the claimant was unlawfully stopped when he was suspended in September 2023.

I have already made an order for the payment of all his emoluments from September 2023 to date, which addresses the specific financial loss of salary.

“However, the claimant has also suffered significant distress, inconvenience, reputational damage, and disruption to his career and personal life as a direct consequence of the arbitrary and unlawful termination of his statutory employment.

In view of these factors, and having considered the totality of the circumstances, I hereby award the sum of N3m.”The court, however, struck out the name of the AGF from the suit on the ground that the claimant was unable to establish any link of the AGF to his case.

According to court documents, the claimant was appointed as the Medical Director of the 6th defendant via an appointment letter signed by the 2nd defendant and dated April 12, 2019, for a tenure of four years.

By virtue of his appointment or approval of appointment as the Medical Director of the 6th defendant by the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the claimant is a Chief Executive of the Federal Government parastatal to whom the Public Service Rules and Approved Disciplinary Procedure against Chief Executives of Federal Government Parastatals, Agencies, and Departments dated May 19, 2020, conveyed via a circular with Ref. No. SGF/OP/I.S.3/T/163, are applicable.

By reason of the aforesaid, the claimant’s appointment as the Medical Director enjoys statutory flavour, and thus its suspension and termination must comply with provisions of the Public Service Rules and Approved Disciplinary Procedure against Chief Executives of Federal Government Parastatals, Agencies, and Departments.During the period of the claimant’s first tenure, he performed the functions of his office creditably and in utmost compliance with the provisions of the extant laws, the Public Service Rules, and applicable circulars, which earned commendations in the letter of renewal of the claimant’s appointment for another term of four years.

During the claimant’s second tenure, he issued a query for disciplinary action against Mr. Afam Ndu, the Acting Principal of the School of Post Basic Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, for acts of insubordination, indiscipline, and refusal to comply with lawful instructions.

Following ensuing petitions arising from the above matters, the claimant was issued a query by the 5th defendant, to which he responded by submitting a detailed written response within the stipulated time.

The claimant was suspended from official duties by the 1st defendant via a letter dated September 20, 2023, which suspension was extended by the 5th defendant via a letter dated January 26, 2024.

The said suspension is contrary to sections 100302–100306 and 100406 of the Public Service Rules and/or paragraphs III, vi, and vii of the Approved Disciplinary Procedure against Chief Executives of Federal Government Parastatals, Agencies, and Departments dated September 19, 2020.

Following the suspension of the claimant from official duties, a seven-man ministerial committee was set up which investigated the allegations, exculpated and exonerated the claimant of any serious allegation, and recommended that he be reinstated as the Medical Director of the 6th defendant.

Based on the misleading prayers as aforesaid, the President gave approval for the termination of the claimant’s appointment by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th defendants.

The claimant’s appointment as Medical Director of the 6th defendant was terminated by the 2nd defendant upon approval of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, who was misled by the twisted report of the 2nd defendant.