₦1bn NIPSS case : Yushau Shuaib heads to appeal court

The founder of PRNigeria and Chief Executive Officer of Image Merchants Promotion Limited , MPR, Yushau A. Shuaib, has vowed to challenge the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissing his ₦1 billion suit against the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, NIPSS, Kuru, Plateau State, over his withdrawal from the prestigious Senior Executive Course, SEC, 47.

Justice Binta Fatima Nyako, in a judgment delivered on Monday, dismissed Shuaib’s suit, holding that the Institute acted within its disciplinary powers after finding that he had breached its confidentiality rules.

The court held that Shuaib had, by apologising on behalf of PRNigeria over a publication considered offensive by the Institute, effectively admitted wrongdoing.

Justice Nyako further ruled that the public relations practitioner could not claim he was denied fair hearing, having appeared before NIPSS’s disciplinary committee to respond to allegations against him before disciplinary action was taken.

The judge also held that Shuaib was bound by the oath of secrecy and confidentiality he subscribed to upon admission into the Senior Executive Course and was therefore obligated to comply with the Institute’s rules throughout the programme.

However, reacting to the judgment, Shuaib expressed disappointment with the court’s findings, insisting that the decision failed to distinguish between his personal conduct and the editorial independence of PRNigeria.

He maintained that before resuming at NIPSS, he had formally disengaged from the day-to-day editorial management of PRNigeria by handing over operational responsibilities in compliance with the Institute’s admission requirements.

According to him, it was therefore unjust to hold him personally liable for publications by an independent media organisation that he neither authored nor edited during the period of his participation in the course.

Shuaib also faulted the judgment for not making pronouncements on what he described as one of the central issues in the suit—the alleged unlawful access to his private email communications.

He said he was surprised that the court held the issue was not properly placed before it despite his contention that his constitutional right to privacy had been violated.

Declaring his intention to continue the legal battle, the PRNigeria founder said the judgment would immediately be challenged at the Court of Appeal.

“While I respect the judgment of the Federal High Court, I firmly believe there are substantial constitutional and legal issues that deserve appellate review. In the interest of justice, fairness and the protection of fundamental rights, we shall be approaching the Court of Appeal without delay,” he said.

Shuaib instituted the suit on July 7, 2025, after NIPSS withdrew him from the Senior Executive Course 47, seeking declarations that the Institute acted unlawfully, unconstitutionally and in breach of his fundamental rights.

In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1329/2025, filed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Yunus Abdulsalam, Shuaib sought ₦1 billion in general, special and aggravated damages for emotional trauma and reputational injury allegedly suffered as a result of his withdrawal from the programme.

He also sought ₦100 million as litigation costs, having earlier served a pre-action notice on June 16, 2025, to the Director-General of NIPSS, Professor Ayo Omotayo, which he claimed received no response.

Among the reliefs sought, the plaintiff asked the court to set aside his withdrawal from SEC 47, order his reinstatement with full rights and privileges, and restrain NIPSS from further acts of harassment, intimidation or cyberbullying.

In his originating summons, Shuaib raised eight constitutional and legal questions for determination, arguing that publications by PRNigeria, an independent media organisation, could not lawfully be attributed to him as personal misconduct.

He also asked the court to determine whether NIPSS violated his constitutional right to privacy under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution by allegedly accessing and using his private email correspondence without his consent.

Shuaib further argued that disciplinary measures taken against him over professional opinions expressed in an editorial amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Section 39 of the Constitution.

He equally alleged that his exclusion from official communication platforms, denial of participation in the Institute’s international study tour despite payment of ₦18.3 million course fees, and eventual withdrawal from the programme amounted to discrimination, breach of contract and denial of fair hearing.

In a 40-paragraph supporting affidavit, Shuaib stated that he was nominated by the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR) to participate in SEC 47, with the nomination subsequently approved by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

He informed the court that he complied with all admission requirements, including formally handing over the management of his media organisation before resuming at the Institute.

According to him, his ordeal began on March 24, 2025, when he received a query over a PRNigeria publication titled “NIPSS Goes Digital; Launches Paperless Platform after Submitting Landmark Report to President Tinubu.”

He maintained that he neither authored nor edited the report, noting that similar stories had been published by several other media organisations.

He further alleged that on April 25, 2025, NIPSS queried him over an internal editorial email concerning an opinion article titled “Understanding the Blue in the Blue Economy,” which he described as a professional reflection that contained no classified or confidential information.

Shuaib also claimed that the withdrawal letter dated June 2, 2025, was addressed to the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations without being officially served on him personally.

Despite the setback at the Federal High Court, Shuaib said he remains determined to pursue the matter through the appellate process, expressing confidence that the Court of Appeal would comprehensively examine the constitutional, contractual and privacy issues raised in the case.