The National Industrial Court, Abuja, has fixed April 30 for sitting to hear a retired Major General of the Nigerian Army, Danjuma Ali-Keffi, who has instituted a multi-billion-naira action against senior military authorities, contesting his compulsory retirement and alleging grave violations on his constitutional rights.
The court held that the proceeding in a suit marked NICN/48/399/2025, will have the Army, the Chief of Army Staff, the Nigerian Army Council, the Chief of Defence Staff, Olufemi Oloyede, the Armed Forces Council, the Minister of Defence, Christopher Musa, and the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, as 1st to 7th respondents in the sitting.
Ali-Keffi is praying the court to nullify his forced exit from service, recognize it as voluntary retirement upon attaining 60 years, and direct payment of all pensions, gratuities and entitlements due to his rank, with 10 per cent annual interest until liquidation.
In his filings, he alleged unlawful arrest, extended detention, torture, denial of fair hearing and what he describes as a dishonourable compulsory retirement, actions he says contravened the Constitution, the Armed Forces Act and applicable military regulations.
The matter, held at the court on Wednesday, had the defendants file a statement of defence challenging the jurisdiction and arguing that the action is statute-barred, while led to an adjournment to consider preliminary objections.
Court documents state that he was taken into custody on October 18, 2021, and held until December 21, 2021, without being formally informed of allegations, charged before any tribunal or subjected to disciplinary proceedings. He maintains that the detention breached Sections 35, 34 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution on personal liberty, dignity and fair hearing.
The claimant seeks ₦100 billion as compensatory damages and another ₦100 billion as punitive and exemplary damages, alongside ₦120 million as special damages calculated at ₦2.5 million monthly from January 2022 to January 2026.
He also claims that death threats forced at least eight unplanned trips to the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, causing financial strain and psychological trauma.
The defence, however, contends that the claimant failed to challenge his retirement before the Army Council within the 90-day window prescribed by the Armed Forces Act, thereby rendering the case incompetent and outside the court’s authority.