Tunji-Ojo, Fagbemi pray court to dismiss suit against proposed expatriates’ tax policy
The Interior Minister, Mr Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, have urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss
By Taiye Agbaje
The Interior Minister, Mr Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, have urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit challenging the implementation of the proposed expatriates taxation regime.
Tunji-Ojo and Fagbemi made the call in separate preliminary objections filed before Justice Inyang Ekwo.
Earlier when the matter was called on Monday, Paul Atayi, who appeare
d for the plaintiff; the Incorporated Trustees of New Kosol Welfare Initiative, told the court that the matter was scheduled for the hearing of the preliminary objection filed by the AGF.
Atayi said the 1st defendant (Tunji-Ojo) had never been represented in the matter despite being served.
He said he had already responded to the AGF’s objection.
Justice Ekwo, however, informed Atayi that the 1st defendant had also filed a preliminary objection on March 14 but Atayi said he had not been served.
The judge advised the lawyer to apply to the registry in order to get the copy and to respond appropriately so that the matter could be given accerared hearing.
Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until May 7 for the hearing of the preliminary objections filed by the Interior Minister and the AGF.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Interior Minister, in his preliminary objection filed on March 14 by Mrs Eva Omotese, Director, Legal Services, also prayed the court to strike out his name from the suit.
Giving five-ground of argument, Tunji-Ojo submitted that the group did not disclose its locus standi to initiate and maintain the suit as constituted.
He said the failure of the plaintiff to disclose its locus standi robbed the court the jurisdiction to entertain the sult.
The minister, who described the suit as “academic or hypothetical,” argued that there is no cause of action against him in the suit.
“There is no lis between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant (Tunji-Ojo) on record,” he said.
In the affidavit deposed to by Anyaeji Uchenna, a legal officer in the ministry, he averred that the Expatriate Employment Levy (EEL) is a financial charge imposed by the Federal Government of Nigeria on companies that employ foreign workers.
He said the main purposes of the EEL are to regulate the employment of expatriates, encourage the hiring and development of local (indigenous) talent and generate revenue for national development projects.
Uchenna argued that the levy would ensure that companies prioritise and invest in local workforce development while also providing funds that can be allocated to various socio-economic initiatives.
He said that EEL was approved by the Federal Executive Council in 2023 and in February 2024, President Bola Tinubu launched the handbook on it implementation.
According to him, following consultations with stakeholders and companies with high volume of Expatriate Employees in Nigeria, the President ordered that the implementation of the project be suspended.
The officer said that the implementation of the policy was suspended since March 2024, and that it had not been launched nor has the FG informed the public to any implementation of tax as erroneously claimed by the plaintiffs.
Uchenna said contrary to the plaintiff’s claim, it had no evidence to proof that the minister or the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) is to commence full implementation of the alleged EEL programme.
He said the group lacked the requisite locus standi to institute the suit in its entirety.
Besides, he argued that the plaintiff’s hurried action to institute the suit without first inquiring for further clarifications from Tunji-Ojo “makes the suit pre-mature, academic or hypothetical in nature and an abuse of court process.”
Uchenna prayed the court to discountenance the plaintiff’s motion and dismiss it with substantial costs in favour of the defendants.
Also speaking in the same vein, Fagbemi, who is the AGF and Minister of Justice, in his preliminary objection, argued that the group lacked the locus standi to file the suit.
The AGF, a 2nd defendant in the suit, also argued that there was no cause of action disclosed in the plaintiff’s suit.
Fagbemi, in the application filed by Maimuna Shiru, Director, Civil Litigation and Public Law, therefore, sought an order dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction.
But in the plaintiff’s reply on points of law to the AGF’s objection filed by Atayi, the lawyer cited reasons a court of law is vested with jurisdiction to hear a matter.
The lawyer argued that a court would assume jurisdiction when it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and that no member is disqualified for one reason or another.
He also argued that the court would be vested with jurisdiction when the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction.
He further argued that the court can assume jurisdiction when the case before the court is initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
Atayi cited previous cases to back his argument including the Saraki Vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria’s case, 2016.
The lawyer also argued that the case, being a public interest litigation, the plaintiff had the locus standi (legal right) to file the suit.
He urged the court to dismiss the objection.
NAN reports that the plaintiff had, in an ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1780/2024, sued the Interior Minister and AGF as 1st and 2nd defendants.
The plaintiff filed the application through a team of lawyers led by Atayi.
The group sought an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from implementing the new Expatriates’ Taxation Regime known as the ‘Expatriate Employment Levy (EEL)’ in Nigeria, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
