JAMB Faces Appeal Court Battle Over Yisa Usman’s Dismissal

•Ex-Deputy Director Raises Questions Over Fair Hearing

The legal battle over the dismissal of former Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) Deputy Director, Yisa Usman, has moved to the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

JAMB has formally received the court process filed by Usman to challenge the June 2, 2026 judgment of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN).

Usman filed an application for leave to appeal on August 27 against the judgment delivered by Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/266/2023.

His proposed Notice of Appeal contains eight grounds challenging different aspects of the NICN judgment.

The development reached another procedural stage on September 1, when JAMB received the court papers at its Registrar’s Office.

An acknowledged copy of the process carries a receipt stamp dated September 1, confirming that the examination body has been formally served.

The case stems from Usman’s dismissal and his disclosures concerning alleged financial, procurement, recruitment and governance irregularities at JAMB.

His whistleblowing activities have attracted civil society attention and international recognition.
At the centre of the appeal is the NICN’s finding that Usman’s employment did not enjoy statutory flavour.

His lawyers argue that his appointment subjected his employment to the general conditions governing appointments in the Nigerian public service.

They also contend that evidence before the lower court established the relevance of the Public Service Rules to his employment.

According to the appeal, the NICN applied the wrong legal test in determining the nature of Usman’s appointment.

The former JAMB director is also challenging the court’s treatment of the Public Service Rules.

The NICN declined to consider the rules on the ground that Usman had not tendered them as an exhibit.

His lawyers argue that the Public Service Rules constitute a statutory instrument of the Federal Government.

They contend that courts can take judicial notice of the rules and that their exclusion deprived Usman of procedural protections during his disciplinary proceedings.

Another major issue concerns the composition of the JAMB Directorate Staff Disciplinary Committee.

Usman maintains that the applicable Staff Manual required all directors of the board to serve on the committee. He alleges that two directors from the Federal Ministry of Education were present at the proceedings.

He also contends that officers junior to him and who were not directors participated in the disciplinary process.

His lawyers therefore argue that the committee lacked the required composition and that the NICN erred by reaching a different conclusion.

The appeal also challenges the lower court’s consideration of allegations of bias against some members of the disciplinary committee.

Usman’s lawyers say documentary evidence supported his concerns about the panel members.

They argue that the NICN did not adequately consider the evidence before deciding whether the disciplinary process met the requirement of impartiality.

Another ground centres on the court’s alleged failure to determine an issue specifically placed before it.

Usman had questioned whether an employer could dismiss an employee over allegations that formed the subject of pending criminal proceedings.

His appeal argues that the NICN’s failure to determine the issue amounted to a breach of fair hearing and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The authority under which his dismissal received approval has also come under challenge.

His lawyers argue that the NICN erred in upholding the Minister’s approval under Section 6 of the JAMB Act.

They contend that the court failed to properly address the lex specialis principle and provisions of the Public Service Rules concerning disciplinary authority over senior officers in the Federal Public Service.

The Court of Appeal is therefore being asked to determine which legal framework governed the disciplinary process that culminated in Usman’s dismissal.

Disability rights also form part of the grounds of appeal.

Usman argues that the NICN failed to determine his claim of disability discrimination under the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act 2018 and Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution.

His lawyers maintain that he pleaded the claim and presented evidence in support of it.

The appeal also directly challenges the finding that Usman received a fair hearing.

His lawyers argue that giving him only three to four days to prepare for a disciplinary proceeding that could end his career was inadequate.

They also fault the lower court for relying on his decision not to attend the disciplinary hearing without sufficiently considering the circumstances surrounding that decision.

Those circumstances, they argue, included the short notice and his documented medical condition.

The appeal further contends that Usman did not have the opportunity to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses against him or secure legal representation during the disciplinary proceedings.

The legal dispute has gained wider attention because of Usman’s profile as a whistleblower.

In 2026, he emerged as a finalist and first runner-up for the Ellsberg Whistleblower Award, an international recognition named after Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.

The recognition followed his disclosures concerning alleged irregularities at JAMB.

The Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation later acknowledged his achievement.

In a letter dated May 4, 2026, the OSGF congratulated Usman and described the recognition as a reflection of his commitment to “accountability and good governance.”

The office also stated that the Federal Government “notes the importance of your public interest disclosures.”

It said the government was taking steps to strengthen the Public Interest Disclosure framework and improve institutional response, coordination, transparency and whistleblower protection.

The government’s acknowledgement does not determine whether Usman’s dismissal was lawful.

It also does not determine whether his grounds of appeal will succeed.

However, the development has added a significant public-interest dimension to the dispute.

The African Centre for Media and Information Literacy (AFRICMIL) has also criticised aspects of the NICN judgment.

The organisation called for stronger protection for whistleblowers in Nigeria.

AFRICMIL also raised concerns about due process, disability rights and institutional accountability in the handling of Usman’s case.

Usman is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the NICN judgment and grant the substantive reliefs he originally sought.

Among his demands are declarations concerning the constitution of the disciplinary committee and the legality of his dismissal.

He is also seeking reinstatement, payment of salaries and allowances that would have accrued, promotion-related reliefs, damages and costs.

The grounds contained in the court process remain Usman’s legal contentions. The appellate court has yet to determine them.

JAMB, having now received the process, has the opportunity to respond in accordance with the appellate procedure.

The appeal could have implications beyond Usman’s individual employment dispute.

It may test the application of the Public Service Rules to employees of federal statutory bodies. It could also clarify the requirements for fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings capable of ending a public officer’s career.

Other issues before the appellate court include the consequences of an allegedly improperly constituted or biased disciplinary committee.

The court may also have to consider the treatment of disability-discrimination claims and the safeguards available to public officers who make disclosures in the public interest.

With JAMB now formally served, Usman’s battle against the dismissal has entered a fresh legal phase at the Court of Appeal.