Manny Ita
Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja, the former Chairman of the Governing Board of the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC), has initiated a legal action at the National Industrial Court in Abuja, claiming ₦1 trillion in damages for what he describes as his “unlawful, unconstitutional, and oppressive” removal from office. The lawsuit, marked NICN/ABJ/241/2020, names the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Federal Government of Nigeria as defendants. Jaja alleges that his removal was a retaliatory act of “victimization” following his efforts to reform the Commission and address deep-seated issues within Nigeria’s intellectual property governance framework.
The legal battle stems from a 2020 directive that terminated Jaja’s tenure before its constitutionally mandated expiration. In his statement of claim, Jaja argues that his appointment was statutory and that the executive branch overstepped its powers by removing him without following the due process outlined in the Copyright Act. Beyond the staggering financial claim for lost earnings and reputational damage, the suit seeks a judicial declaration that his removal was null and void, and an order for his reinstatement or full compensation for the remainder of his term.
Legal analysts suggest the case has significant implications for the independence of regulatory bodies in Nigeria. During the most recent mention of the case, Jaja’s legal team emphasized that the high figure of the claim reflects the “gravity of the breach of public trust and the systemic victimization” he allegedly faced during his brief tenure. The defendants have consistently maintained that the removal was part of a broader administrative restructuring, but Jaja contends that the move was specifically designed to stifle transparency initiatives he had begun to implement at the NCC.
The presiding judge, Justice O.O. Oyewumi, has adjourned the matter for a continuation of the hearing, as both parties prepare to present further evidence. The case is being closely watched by the Nigerian creative industry and intellectual property experts, as the outcome could set a major precedent regarding the job security of heads of federal parastatals and the limits of the Attorney-General’s oversight powers.
