The Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) have case to answer over alleged copyright theft, the court has held.
In a 21-page ruling delivered by Justice A.I. Chikere of the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, on Tuesday, December 10th, 2019, in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/77/2018, between Omooba Olumuyiwa Sosanya and Hysit-TYJ Nigeria Limited as plaintiffs with the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) and Active Solution Integrated Synergy Limited as defendants, the judge held that the plaintiffs had sufficient grounds to press for charges against the defendants.
The learned counsel to the plaintiffs Femi Aborisade Esq had by way of writ of summons dated and filed on the 24/01/2018 prayed the court for the nine reliefs including a declaration that by section 24 (1) and 42 (1) (a) of the Public Procurement Act, the first defendant is statutorily and mandatorily required to procure goods and services by “open competitive bidding” except where a particular supplier has an exclusive right in respect to particular goods or services. Thus, the plaintiffs by virtue of the exclusive copyright vested in the first plaintiff, are the only qualified suppliers eligible to be awarded the contract for an Information (IT) driven Value Added Tax Revenue Generation from telecommunication operators in Nigeria.
A declaration that the award of the contract for an IT driven VAT Revenue generation from telecommunication operators to the third defendants with registration number 1378098, which was only incorporated on 2nd December, 2016 about one year after the plaintiffs had submitted their proposal to the first defendant on 4th December, 2015 and without providing an opportunity for the plaintiffs to participate in the selection process is an act of fraudulent “insider dealing” and a breach of the competitive and transparent procedure outline in the Public Procurement Act.
Read Also: My plans for FIRS, by Nami
The plaintiffs had in a meeting with the chairman of the first defendant on the 17th of September, 2015, had submitted two separate proposals for an Information Technology (IT) system to ensure that all taxes and levies collected by airlines on behalf of the federal government is captured and remitted to the federation account as well as capture VAT payable by the telecommunication companies in order to ensure due remittance of same to the federal government.
According to the plaintiffs, the chairman of the first defendant had explained to the plaintiffs that the first defendant was already about signing contract with a company on capturing of taxes and levies collected on behalf of the federal government by the airlines and that it was the proposal on capturing VAT payable by telecommunication companies that the plaintiffs could submit, pending the time a formal call for application or expression of interest would be formally published in national dailies to which the plaintiffs could also formally respond as a bidder.
Besides, the first defendant through its chairman, indeed acknowledged and emphasised that the idea of an IT system to capture VAT payable by telecommunication companies in Nigeria brought by the plaintiffs was a completely novel idea, which the first defendant was being made to be aware of, for the first time.
The plaintiffs subsequently submitted to the first defendant, the copyright registration certificate No. LW1326 dated 26th, February, 2016, issued by the Nigerian Copyright Commission, showing that the first plaintiff has an exclusive license to the expression of the idea of “Information Technology driven VAT tax generation- solution to capture VAT payable by telecoms created in 2015.
In a statement of claim filed on 24/01/2018 the plaintiffs averred that the first plaintiff is the Managing Director/CEO of the second plaintiff. The plaintiff further averred that the kernel of their complaint against the defendant is that whereas they possess an exclusive copyright license/right and submitted a proposal to the first defendant for an IT-driven VAT revenue generation from telecommunication operators as far back as 04/12/2015, the first defendant refused, failed and/or neglected to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to participate in the transparent competitive bidding process as provided in the Public Procurement Act. Rather, the first defendant awarded the contract to the third defendant which came into existence only on 02/12/16, in a non-competitive, non-transparent and in an unfair preferential process.
Upon service, the counsel to the first and second defendants, C.N. Udekwe and John T. Tunoh Esq, filed separate notice of preliminary objections on the 10/09/2018 and the 21/2/2018, respectively, praying the court to strike out or dismiss the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to fulfill a mandatory condition precedent for the commencement of the suit among other things.
But Justice Chikere, in delivering his ruling observed that “As rightly argued by the learned counsel to the plaintiffs, the provision of Section 14 of the Public Procurement Act was made subject to the act (Public Procurement Act).”
The judge therefore ruled that the preliminary objections filed by the first and second defendants stand dismissed as it was lacking in merit. The judge, however, did not attach any order as to cost.
Leave a Reply