Former lecturer sues FUD over dismissal, demands N120m for alleged defamation

A former lecturer at the Federal University Dutse (FUD), Dr Ramla Muhammad Kamal, has sued the institution and its Registrar at the Federal High Court in Dutse, challenging her dismissal from service and seeking N120 million in damages over alleged defamation and breach of her employment rights. The suit, FHC/DUT/CS/18/2026, was instituted by Dr Ramla […]

A former lecturer at the Federal University Dutse (FUD), Dr Ramla Muhammad Kamal, has sued the institution and its Registrar at the Federal High Court in Dutse, challenging her dismissal from service and seeking N120 million in damages over alleged defamation and breach of her employment rights.

The suit, FHC/DUT/CS/18/2026, was instituted by Dr Ramla Muhammad Kamal, a former Lecturer II in the Department of Pharmacology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, against the Federal University Dutse and its Registrar.

In her suit, Kamal is challenging the legality of her dismissal, alleging that the university breached the terms governing her employment, denied her fair hearing and unlawfully publicised her dismissal before officially serving her with the letter.

She is asking the court to declare the University’s publication as defamatory and compel the university to withdraw the publication of her name as absconding scholar, publish a public apology and award her N100 million as general damages and N20 million as exemplary damages.

• ‘Phantom’ agency DG held at former SARS headquarters
• Bwari council workers to receive 30 months’ peculiar allowance

According to her court filings, she was granted study leave with full salary to pursue postgraduate studies at Universiti Putra Malaysia, which she completed in 2023.

She claimed that while on study leave, she personally financed her tuition, accommodation, flights and other educational expenses with support from her family, alleging that the university paid only her salary and failed to provide other benefits she believed she was entitled to.

Kamal further told the court that after completing her studies, her husband’s research appointment in the United States prompted her to seek a leave of absence to pursue a clinical pharmacology fellowship while requesting that her study leave bond be suspended until her return to Nigeria.

She alleged that the university rejected the request, stopped her salary in May 2024, initiated disciplinary proceedings and eventually dismissed her in June 2026 without giving her adequate opportunity to defend herself.

She also claimed that news of her dismissal and alleged sponsorship and abscondment from duty appeared on several online media platforms without receiving any dismissal letter, describing the action as damaging to her reputation.

However, in their joint statement of defence, the university and its Registrar denied the allegations, insisting that Kamal’s employment was governed by the Federal University Dutse Act, the university’s Conditions of Service, Study Leave Regulations and a study leave bond voluntarily signed before she travelled abroad.

The defendants maintained that the university fulfilled its obligations during the approved study leave by paying her salaries and approved emoluments, arguing that it was never under any contractual or statutory obligation to pay her tuition fees, accommodation, travel expenses or other personal educational costs.

The university further argued that the lecturer violated the study leave bond by failing to return to Nigeria and resume duty after completing her studies, instead remaining in the United States without approval.

FUD also filed a counterclaim asking the court to declare the study leave bond valid and enforceable and to order Kamal to refund N16,375,817.69, being salaries and emoluments allegedly paid during the period covered by the bond.

According to the university, the amount was determined after disciplinary proceedings conducted by its Governing Council in line with the Federal University Dutse Act and the institution’s Conditions of Service.

The university also denied allegations of defamation, insisting that the publication of the dismissal was justified and carried out in compliance with directives issued by the Federal Ministry of Education regarding staff who abscond during approved study leave.

Both parties have indicated that they will rely on letters relating to the study leave, the study leave bond, disciplinary proceedings, correspondence, salary records, bank statements and other documentary evidence during the hearing.

The Court is to determine whether the publication of the claimant’s name amounts to defamation of character or not.