Unlawful Withdrawal from SEC 47: Court to deliver judgement in PRNigeria founder’s N1bn suit against NIPSS June 19
Federal High Court to Deliver Judgment on NIPSS Withdrawal Case June 19
The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled a judgment date of June 19 for a case brought by Malam Yushau Shuaib, founder of PRNigeria, against the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS). Shuaib is contesting his recent withdrawal from the Senior Executive Course (SEC) 47.
Justice Binta Fatima Nyako set the judgment date on Wednesday after hearing arguments from both sides. During the proceedings, Shuaib’s attorney, Teslim Adigun, argued that the court should declare the withdrawal unlawful and reinstate his client in the course.
Adigun emphasized that Shuaib had clearly presented his case and urged the court to resolve the matter in his favor. In contrast, Mr. P. A. Akubo, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, representing NIPSS, contended that enrollment in the institute’s course is not a fundamental right and requested that the case be dismissed.
After considering the arguments, Justice Nyako announced she would issue her judgment on June 19. Shuaib’s legal action against NIPSS, located in Kuru, Plateau State, is formally categorized under the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1329/2025. The public relations expert is seeking ₦1 billion in damages, citing emotional trauma and reputational harm due to his withdrawal.
Additionally, Shuaib is pursuing an award of ₦100 million for litigation costs, claiming that a pre-action notice issued to the director-general of NIPSS, Professor Ayo Omotayo, was disregarded. Represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Yunus Abdulsalam, he seeks a court order reinstating him in the SEC 47 program, along with all rights, benefits, and privileges associated with that status. He is also requesting a permanent injunction to prevent NIPSS from further harassment, intimidation, or cyberbullying.
In his originating summons, Shuaib raised eight issues for determination, notably challenging the appropriateness of attributing misconduct to him based on a PRNigeria article he neither authored nor endorsed. He questions whether NIPSS’s alleged access to his private email without consent infringed on his constitutional right to privacy and argues that disciplinary measures taken against him for the content of a published article violated his freedom of expression.
He also claims that barring him from engaging with other participants and removing him from official platforms constituted harassment and discrimination. Furthermore, he argues that denying him participation in an international study tour, despite paying course fees of ₦18.3 million, breaches contractual obligations.
Shuaib challenges the circumstances surrounding his suspension and withdrawal from the course, asserting he was not afforded a fair hearing, thus violating his constitutional rights. He seeks declarations that NIPSS’s actions were unlawful, unjustifiable, discriminatory, and lacking in regulatory support.
The plaintiff detailed in a 40-paragraph affidavit that he was nominated by the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations to attend the course, a nomination approved by the President of Nigeria. He provided documentation, including his admission letter and proof of payment, as evidence of compliance with NIPSS requirements prior to the alleged harassment and intimidation.
Shuaib cited two specific queries from NIPSS regarding articles published by PRNigeria, asserting he neither wrote nor edited those pieces. He characterized the disciplinary actions taken against him as unfounded and unsupported by the institute’s code of conduct, and he raised concerns about the irregularity of his withdrawal notice.
As the court prepares to issue its ruling, the outcome may have significant implications for both parties and the broader discourse on academic freedom and institutional governance in Nigeria.
