By Vivian Okejeme
Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, will on June 19, deliver judgment in a suit filed by the founder of PRNigeria, Malam Yushau Shuaib against the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS).
The PRNigeria, a renowned public relations expert is before the court challenging his withdrawal from the Senior Executive Course (SEC) 47.
The Plaintiff prayed the court to declare his withdrawal unlawful, unjustifiable, and discriminatory.
Shuaib is demanding ₦1 billion in general, special, and aggravated damages against NIPSS over alleged emotional trauma and reputational damage.
Adopting his final written addresses, counsel to Shuaib, Teslim Adigun, prayed the court to grant the request of his client by declaring his withdrawal from SEC 47 illegal and restore him to the course.
He insisted that Shuaib had presented his case in clear terms and that the court should resolve the disputed issues in his favour.
However, counsel to wants the case dismissed insisting that admission to NIPSS course is not a fundamental right to anybody.
Justice Nyako after listening to arguments announced that she would deliver judgment on June 19.
The founder of PRNigeria had dragged NIPSS Kuru, Plateau State before the Court challenging his withdrawal from the Senior Executive Course (SEC) 47 of the Institute.
He is also seeking an additional ₦100 million as litigation costs, having issued a pre-action notice on June 16, 2025, to the Institute’s Director General, Professor Ayo Omotayo, which was allegedly ignored by the management.
He seeks the order of the court to set aside his withdrawal from SEC 47 and reinstating him with full rights, benefits, and privileges.
Shuaib is also asking for a perpetual injunction restraining NIPSS, its agents, or officials from further harassment, intimidation, or cyberbullying.
In his originating summons, the plaintiff raised eight issues for determination. He argued that the publication of a news article by PRNigeria, an independent media organisation, cannot lawfully be attributed to him as misconduct when he neither authored nor endorsed it.
He also questioned whether NIPSS’s alleged access and use of his private email without consent violated his constitutional right to privacy under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution.
Shuaib further contended that disciplinary action against him for professional opinions expressed in a published article breached his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Section 39(1).
He argued that barring participants from interacting with him and removing him from official platforms amounted to harassment, cyberbullying, and forced isolation.
He maintained that denying him participation in the international study tour, despite his full payment of ₦18.3 million course fees, constituted discrimination and breach of contract.
He also faulted his suspension and withdrawal from the course based on alleged “externalisation of the subject” without a fair hearing, describing it as a violation of his constitutional right under Section 36(1).
Shuaib is therefore seeking declarations that the actions of NIPSS were unlawful, unjustifiable, discriminatory, and unsupported by any regulation guiding the institute.
In a 40-paragraph affidavit, Shuaib stated that he was nominated by the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR) to represent it at the course, a nomination approved by the President of Nigeria.
He attached his admission letter, proof of payment of ₦18.3 million, and evidence of compliance with NIPSS requirements, including handing over responsibilities at his company, Image Merchants Promotion Limited, publishers of PRNigeria.
He alleged that despite complying with institutional rules, he was subjected to harassment, intimidation, and arbitrary disciplinary actions.
According to him, on March 24, he received a query over a PRNigeria article titled “NIPSS Goes Digital; Launches Paperless Platform after Submitting Landmark Report to President Tinubu.”
Shuaib insisted he neither authored nor edited the article, which other media outlets had widely reported.
He further alleged that on April 25, NIPSS again queried him about an internal email concerning an editorial, “Understanding the ‘Blue’ in the Blue Economy.”
He stated the article was a professional reflection containing no sensitive information, yet NIPSS intercepted it before it could be published.
Shuaib claimed that the queries were unfounded and not supported by the NIPSS Code of Conduct. He further alleged that his withdrawal letter dated June 2, 2025, was curiously addressed only to NIPR without being officially served on him.
Moreover, he wants the court to declare that NIPSS has no authority to penalise him for content published by an independent platform.
He also wants the court to declare that accessing his private emails violated his constitutional rights.
