A
Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has nullified the claim by the Nigerian
Institute of Architects, NIA, that the Architects’ Registration Council of
Nigeria ARCON, the regulatory body of architecture profession in the country,
has been dissolved and therefore has no power to sanction erring members of
NIA.
The
case commenced by originating summons filed on January 19, 2017, and brought
pursuant to Section 2 and 12 (3) of Architects’ Registration Council of Nigeria
Act 2004 Order 3 Rules 6 and 7 of the Federal High Court Rules 2009.
The
plaintiffs led by the immediate past president of NIA, include Arc. Tonye
Braide, Arc. Abimbola Ajayi, Arc. David Majekodunmi and Arc. Dike Emmanuel had
sought the following-
Whether
ARCON who are the defendants, having been dissolved, has power to perform
any duty or exercise any statutory powers under the Architects’ Registration
Act 2004. Whether the powers of the Architects’ Investigating Panel, AIP, are
limited to allegation of misbehaviour in the capacity of an architect. Whether
the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to fair hearing are likely to be breached by
the defendants.
Meanwhile,
the defendants, through their counsel had sought the court to determine whether
ARCON can be dissolved or has in fact been dissolved by the circular dated 16th
July 2015 issued by the Office of the Secretary to the Federal Government. They
also wanted the court to determine whether ARCON has the statutory power to
invite any erring architect to appear before the Architects’ Investigating
Panel.
ARCON
equally sought the court to determine whether the invitation extended to the
plaintiffs severally to appear before the Architects’ Investigating Panel
constituted a breach of the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to fair hearing.
Responding to issue one, ARCON submitted that the Federal Government circular
of 16th July 2015 did not and could not dissolve its council because none of
the council members was appointed by the president of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, who was said to have given the order of dissolution.
They
also contended that the president could not validly dissolve a body not
constituted by him, citing paragraph 5 first schedule, to the enabling Act,
Architects’ Registration ACT Act 2004. It therefore submitted that, unlike most
government Parastatals, Departments and Agencies, the composition of ARCON was
spelt out, and as a result, ARCON was not dissolved or in any way affected by
the circular. On issue two, it noted that ARCON has the statutory power to
invite any erring architect to appear before the AIP, pointing out that the
panel only conducts preliminary investigation whenever there is an allegation
that a registered architect has misbehaved in his or her capacity as an architect
or should for any other reason, be the subject of proceedings before the
Architects’ Disciplinary Tribunal.
The
defendant insisted that it acted within the statutory powers in inviting the
plaintiffs to appear before AIP, where ample opportunity would be given to
defend themselves in respect of any allegation against them. On allegation of
breaching the fundamental right of the plaintiffs to fair hearing, ARCON’s
lawyer said the invitation does not in anyway constitute that, as in the event
that a prima facie case is established against them and the matter goes to the
Architects’ Disciplinary Tribunal as provided by their ACT.
In
his ruling, the Judge said that from the totality of all processes filed in the
suit, the plaintiffs did not show or present to the court sufficient evidence
that the contested circular of the Federal Government affected ARCON in its
statutory functions in any way.
According
to the Judge, careful examination of the said circular does not capture ARCON
and therefore, it is without doubt to say that the relief sought by the
plaintiffs in this application did not succeed on the grounds that the
defendants according to part C of Companies and Allied Matter Act 2004, CAMA,
are professionals, which regulate the affairs of all its registered members.
“And by Section of the Architects’ Registration Act, members or composition of
ARCON were not appointed by the president of Nigeria and therefore, that
circular cannot dissolve them.
Subsequently,
if the circular of 16th July 2015 did not affect the defendants, then, any
action taken by them cannot be seen as ultra vires or void. “I, therefore,
uphold the submission of the defendants’ counsel and hold that the Federal
Government of Nigeria circular dated July 16, 2015 did not dissolve the
defendants, as they were not appointed by the government of Nigeria.
This
originating summons is dismissed for lack of merit,” the Judge ruled. Trouble
started in 2015 between the former NIA exco members and ARCON following the
latter’s decision to conduct examinations on professional practice for
individual architects desirous of registering with ARCON, a position NIA
frowned at and held that, it was against the Act establishing its regulatory
body.
While the controversy lasted, NIA said it learnt
about a circular dated 16th July 2015, issued by the Office of the Secretary to
the Federal Government dissolving ARCON. According to NIA, it wrote to the
Minister for Works, Power and Housing, Mr. Raji Fashola to seek clarification
on ARCON’s status. Responding to its enquiry, NIA said one Architect Sani
Gidado, a Director/HOD Architectural Services noted that the matter was being
attended to and also advised NIA to avoid any further statements or
correspondence on the matter until the Minister completed action on the matter.
Kingsley
Adegboye
Comments
Post a Comment