The dismissal of former Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board Deputy Director, Yisa Usman, is heading for another legal test, with the Court of Appeal in Abuja set to consider issues surrounding his disciplinary process.
Usman has challenged the June 2, 2026 judgment of the National Industrial Court, which ruled against his claims arising from his dismissal.
The former JAMB official filed an application for leave to appeal on August 27. JAMB was formally served with the court process on September 1.
At the heart of the appeal is whether Usman was given a fair opportunity to defend himself before his employment was terminated.
His lawyers argue that he was given only three to four days to prepare for a disciplinary hearing that could end his career.
They also allege that he was not allowed to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses against him or secure legal representation during the proceedings.
The appeal is also questioning the composition of the disciplinary committee that handled the case.
Usman contends that officers who were not directors participated in the process, despite provisions of the applicable JAMB Staff Manual.
His lawyers argue that this raised questions about whether the committee was properly constituted and whether its decision could validly support his dismissal.
Another major issue is the application of the Public Service Rules to his employment.
The legal team argues that the rules provided safeguards that should have governed the disciplinary process. They fault the National Industrial Court for declining to consider the rules because they were not tendered as an exhibit.
The appeal is asking the Court of Appeal to determine whether the Public Service Rules applied to Usman and whether they were properly considered by the lower court.
Usman is also challenging the handling of allegations of bias against members of the disciplinary committee.
His lawyers maintain that documentary evidence was presented to support the allegations but was not adequately considered by the lower court.
The former JAMB deputy director has further raised questions over his disability-discrimination claim under the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act 2018 and Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution.
The appeal argues that the issue was properly placed before the lower court but was not adequately determined.
Usman’s case has attracted attention because it is linked to his disclosures concerning alleged financial, procurement, recruitment and governance irregularities at JAMB.
He was also recognised internationally in 2026 as first runner-up for the Ellsberg Whistleblower Award.
The recognition followed his public-interest disclosures, although it has no bearing on whether his dismissal was lawful.
The Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation had earlier acknowledged the award and described his recognition as reflecting a commitment to accountability and good governance.
However, the government’s acknowledgement does not determine the legality of Usman’s dismissal, just as the allegations made by either side remain subject to judicial determination.
Usman is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the National Industrial Court judgment and grant the reliefs sought in his original suit.
These include reinstatement, payment of salaries and allowances, promotion-related reliefs, damages and costs.
The case could now become a broader test of how federal statutory agencies handle disciplinary proceedings, particularly where a public officer faces dismissal.
It could also provide the appellate court with an opportunity to clarify the limits of fair hearing, the role of Public Service Rules and the requirements for properly constituted disciplinary panels.
For now, the allegations and grounds contained in the appeal remain the arguments of Usman and his lawyers.
The Court of Appeal is yet to determine whether those arguments have merit.