Staff of the Edo State Judiciary have accused their Union’s Chairman for not carrying them along in the scheme of things.

They specifically accused the Chairman, Mr. Uyi Ogieriakhi, for allegedly colluding with politicians to file an ex perte motion, without their knowledge, in view of their unpaid seven months salaries during the Adams Oshiomhole’s administration.

While describing the moves as politically motivated, the staff threatened to pull out of the union which they alleged was trading with their unpaid salaries issue.

The staff who trooped out in their large numbers for a meeting called by their Chairman, grew wild when he announced that the meeting was aimed at organizing a protest march in view of the unpaid salaries.

They further accused their Chairman for not calling for Congress regularly which they alleged shows that he had something to hide, emphasizing that he must first tender unreserved apologies to them and the state government for the wrong steps taken and as well, issue a press release and a communique distancing himself from the motion ex perte which was thrown out by the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.

In his defence, Mr. Ogieriakhi denied knowledge of the suit which he said was filed by the National office of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria, JUSUN.

Mr. Ogieriakhi who stated that he does not belong to any political party consequently tendered an apology to the staff for the development and agreed to obey the terms stated by the angry Judiciary Staff.

Hon. Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday 27th August 2020, struck out an application filed by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria against the Edo State Government over an alleged seven months unpaid salaries of the Judiciary Staff in 2014/2015.

Delivering ruling in the Union’s motion ex perte, Justice Abang noted that the Union failed to disclose the exact amount it sought to target in the nine bank accounts which it furnished before the court.

Justice Abang refused the application to garnishee the nine bank accounts because, issuing such orders will amount to crippling the State.

The court questioned the motives behind the application coming at the time of the state’s Governorship election and described it as ill-motivated because the judgment of the court can still be enforced after the election in the state.