Cement Standardization: Court To Hear Suit Seeking To Restrain SON From Enforcing Directive, January 7, 2015

Cement Standardization: Court To Hear Suit Seeking To Restrain SON From Enforcing Directive, January 7, 2015

The absence of the Director-General of  Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) before the Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday stalled a suit filed by a human rights group; Alliance Against Monopoly (AAM), challenging recent directive to cement manufacturers on industry standard.

The court was forced to adjourned the case to  January 7, 2015 after counsel to AAM, Ogbonnaya Agbafo informed the court that SON’s officials refused to sign for the court processes served on them.
 
Agbafo, therefore urged the court to grant him a short adjourment to enable him to bring an application for substituted service.

The plaintiff had gone before the court seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from embarking on any future act which might have the effect of enthroning a monopoly in any industry in Nigeria directly or indirectly which is bound to affect the plaintiff’s members in their individual lives.
 
In an originating summons and affidavit of claims filed before the court, the plaintiff has sought a declaration among other things that the Standards Organisation of Nigeria is strictly bound, and its functions wholly circumscribed by its enabling Act and anything done or proposed to be done by it in contravention of the provisions of that Act is ultra vires its statutory powers and is therefore, null, void and of no effect.

The plaintiff has also sought a declaration of the court that no industrial standard or prescription under the SON Act can be binding on manufacturers unless such standards or prescriptions are duly declared as binding on manufacturers by the Minister of Industries (or Minister in charge of industries) pursuant to Section 16(7) (a)-(c) of the Standards Organisation Act.

The plaintiff has further asked the court to declare that the Ad hoc Committee of the House of Representatives has no power to validly perform any of the functions which are statutorily conferred on and/or reserved for the Standards Council of Nigeria created under Section 3 of the SON Act with its functions clearly spelt out in Section 4(1) (a) – (e) of the said Act.

It is the plaintiff’s belief that SON’s directive to cement manufacturers on standard arose from the making of the Ad hoc Committee of the House of Representatives and has posed a question whether in view of the clear provisions of Sections 3 (1), (2) and 4(1) a-e of the Standards Organisation of Nigeria Act, such an ad hoc committee has constitutional or statutory power to formulate, advise, issue or cause a directive to be issued by the Standards Organisation of Nigeria in respect of national policy on standards, standards specifications, product labeling, quality control or other matters in relation to any industrial product in Nigeria.

Since the plaintiff believes that the proposed new industrial standards on cement is contrary to the spirit and letters of the SON Act and is inimical to the national economy, peace and good governance in society, it is seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Standards Organisation of Nigeria  and Attorney General of the Federation,  first and second defendants respectively from enforcing the directive of the first defendant (SON) to cement manufacturers on product labeling in a manner that is clearly calculated to stigmatise cement grade 32.5mpa.

This is against the backdrop of the fact that it is on the production, use and marketing of that grade of cement that the livelihood, comfort, shelter and peaceful enjoyment of life of the plaintiff’s members, their relatives and neighbours depend.

It would be recalled that the Standards Organisation of Nigeria had on July 21, 2014 given 60 days ultimatum for cement manufacturers to comply with its directive on product labeling and traceability requirement but the directive was largely perceived by industry stakeholders as not being in their best interest.  Hence,  Alliance Against Monopoly; a human rights group stood up to resist the move.

Sequel to the SON’s directive, the group gave a seven-day counter-ultimatum asking SON to rescind its 60-day ultimatum on the ground that the product labeling and traceability requirement was not well-intentioned.

The group’s demand for SON to rescind its ultimatum was predicated on two grounds.  The first was the unfeasibility of the 60-day ultimatum given that most cement manufacturers would need at least six months to retool their machinery to be able to meet SON’s labeling and traceability requirement.

The second reason hinged on the fact that contrary to what SON made it to be, the labeling and traceability requirement should not be open ended.  The AAM had contended that the requirement should have emphasized only three key factors namely (a) Manufacturing date (b) Best before date (c) Batch number.

The group had argued that the 60-day ultimatum given to cement manufacturers was pre-dated by the ill—advised policy on cement standardization which is an attempt to introduce through the back door unwholesome monopoly in an otherwise clement cement industry in Nigeria.

The human rights group had threatened a legal action against SON if the organization failed to rescind its 60-day ultimatum.  It seems to have no choice but to live up to its promise via the suit now before Hon. Justice Saliu Saidu of the Federal High Court, Lagos.

Following the expiration of its seven-day ultimatum to SON, members of the human rights group had staged a protest in October, 2015 at the premises of the SUN newspapers.