PRNigeria founder heads to A/Court over N1bn suit against NIPSS

Founder of PRNigeria and Chief Executive Officer of Image Merchants Promotion Limited (IMPR), Yushau A. Shuaib, has vowed to challenge the dismissal of his N1 billion suit against the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru. Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday dismissed the suit, ruling that NIPSS […]

Founder of PRNigeria and Chief Executive Officer of Image Merchants Promotion Limited (IMPR), Yushau A. Shuaib, has vowed to challenge the dismissal of his N1 billion suit against the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru.
Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday dismissed the suit, ruling that NIPSS acted within its disciplinary powers when it withdrew Shuaib from the Senior Executive Course (SEC) 47 over alleged breach of the institute’s confidentiality rules.
The court held that Shuaib’s apology on behalf of PRNigeria amounted to an admission of wrongdoing and ruled that he was given fair hearing, having appeared before the institute’s disciplinary committee.
Justice Nyako also held that Shuaib was bound by the oath of secrecy and confidentiality he took before joining the course.
Reacting to the judgment, Shuaib expressed disappointment, insisting that the court failed to distinguish between his personal conduct and the editorial independence of PRNigeria.
He said he had formally handed over the management of the organisation before resuming at NIPSS and should not be held responsible for publications he neither authored nor edited.
Shuaib also faulted the judgment for not addressing his claim that NIPSS unlawfully accessed his private email communications, which he argued violated his constitutional right to privacy.
He said he would immediately appeal the decision.
The suit, filed on July 7, 2025, sought N1 billion in damages over his withdrawal from the programme, reinstatement to SEC 47, N100 million as litigation costs and declarations that his constitutional rights to privacy, fair hearing and freedom of expression were violated.
He expressed confidence that the Court of Appeal would thoroughly examine the constitutional and legal issues raised in the case.