The legal battle over the dismissal of former Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board Deputy Director, Yisa Usman, has moved to the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
JAMB was formally served on September 1 with court papers challenging the June 2, 2026 judgment of the National Industrial Court, which ruled against Usman in his suit over the dismissal.
Usman filed an application for leave to appeal on August 27. His proposed Notice of Appeal contains eight grounds challenging different aspects of the judgment delivered by Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae.
The appeal places fair hearing and due process at the centre of the dispute.
Usman’s lawyers argue that he was given only three to four days to prepare for a disciplinary hearing that could end his career.
They also contend that he was denied the opportunity to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses against him and obtain legal representation during the proceedings.
The former JAMB official is further challenging the composition of the disciplinary committee that handled his case.
According to his appeal, the applicable JAMB Staff Manual required directors of the board to serve on the committee. He alleges that officers who were not directors also participated in the proceedings.
His lawyers argue that the committee was therefore improperly constituted and that the lower court erred in reaching a different conclusion.
Another major issue is whether the Public Service Rules applied to Usman’s employment.
The legal team argues that his appointment was subject to the general conditions governing appointments in the Nigerian public service.
They fault the National Industrial Court for declining to consider the Public Service Rules because they were not tendered as an exhibit.
The lawyers maintain that the rules are a Federal Government instrument and should have been considered in determining whether the disciplinary process complied with applicable procedures.
Usman is also challenging the court’s treatment of his allegations of bias against members of the disciplinary committee.
His lawyers contend that documentary evidence was presented to support the allegations but was not adequately considered by the lower court.
The appeal further raises questions about whether an employee can be dismissed over allegations that are also the subject of pending criminal proceedings.
Usman’s lawyers argue that the failure of the lower court to determine the issue amounted to a denial of fair hearing.
His disability-discrimination claim is also part of the appeal.
He contends that the National Industrial Court failed to determine his claim under the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act 2018 and Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution.
The former JAMB deputy director’s case has attracted wider public attention because of his disclosures concerning alleged financial, procurement, recruitment and governance irregularities at the examination body.
However, the allegations remain contested and have not been established by the Court of Appeal.
In 2026, Usman emerged as first runner-up for the Ellsberg Whistleblower Award, an international recognition associated with whistleblowing and public-interest disclosures.
The Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation subsequently acknowledged the recognition in a May 4, 2026 letter and referred to the importance of his public-interest disclosures.
That acknowledgement does not determine whether his dismissal was lawful or whether his appeal will succeed.
The African Centre for Media and Information Literacy has also raised concerns about aspects of the National Industrial Court judgment and called for stronger protection for whistleblowers.
Usman is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the NICN judgment and grant the reliefs sought in his original suit.
His claims include reinstatement, payment of salaries and allowances, promotion-related reliefs, damages and costs.
JAMB, having now been served, is expected to respond through the appropriate legal process.
The Court of Appeal has yet to determine the merits of Usman’s arguments.
Beyond the individual dispute, the case could test how federal statutory agencies apply the Public Service Rules, the standard required for fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings and the safeguards available to public officers who make disclosures in the public interest.