Recruitment Scandal: Excluded Applicants Hire Lawyers, Give Nigeria Customs Seven Days To Explain Omission From Training Or Face Lawsuit | Sahara Reporters
They warned that failure by the Customs Service to resolve the matter within seven days of receiving their petition could result in legal action.
Affected applicants in the 2024/2025 Nigerian Customs Service (NCS) recruitment exercise have hired lawyers and given the agency seven days to explain why they were excluded from basic training despite appearing on the published final list of successful candidates and receiving provisional appointment offers.
The applicants, through their solicitors, Marshal Attorneys, are demanding an immediate review of their exclusion, reinstatement of eligible candidates into the recruitment process, and the issuance of formal appointment letters to those whose eligibility is confirmed.
They warned that failure by the Customs Service to resolve the matter within seven days of receiving their petition could result in legal action.
The demands were contained in a letter dated October 26, 2026, addressed to the Comptroller-General of Customs at the Nigerian Customs Service Headquarters, No. 2, Lake Taal Close, off Trigis Crescent, Maitama, Abuja, Federal Capital Territory.
Titled “Protestation Over The Unjustifiable Exclusion Of Successful Candidates From Basic Training In The 2024/2025 Nigerian Customs Service Recruitment Exercise And Demand For Reinstatement, Issuance Of Formal Appointment,” the letter was signed by Timibeleukedi D. Festus of Marshal Attorneys.
The law firm said it was acting on behalf of affected candidates whose names appeared on the published final list for the ranks of Assistant Superintendent of Customs II (ASC II), Assistant Inspector of Customs II (AIC II) and Customs Assistant II (CA II).
According to the solicitors, their clients participated in the recruitment exercise, completed the required stages and subsequently received provisional appointment offers through the Service’s official recruitment portal.
However, despite completing the prescribed processes, the applicants were allegedly excluded from the subsequent basic training exercise and applicable state command attachment without being given a formal explanation.
The lawyers explained that the affected candidates had been left uncertain about their recruitment status because the Service had neither formally withdrawn their provisional appointments nor communicated any adverse screening results or specific grounds for their exclusion.
According to the petition, the Nigerian Customs Service commenced a nationwide recruitment exercise in December 2024 to fill 3,927 vacancies across the Superintendent, Inspectorate and Customs Assistant cadres.
The solicitors said their clients participated in the exercise and progressed through the prescribed recruitment stages before the Service published its final list of successful candidates in July 2026.
Following the publication, the applicants allegedly received individual provisional appointment offers through the official recruitment portal.
The notifications reportedly instructed them to fulfil specific requirements, including uploading medical certificates of fitness issued by approved government hospitals and formally accepting their offers within the stipulated period.
The lawyers said their clients complied with the instructions, attended the designated screening and documentation exercise, and submitted themselves to the prescribed verification procedures.
Despite those steps, the applicants were allegedly left out of the subsequent basic training exercise and the applicable state command attachment.
The solicitors said no formal notice withdrawing their provisional appointments or disqualifying them from the recruitment exercise had been served on their clients.
They further stated that the affected candidates had not been furnished with adverse screening results or specific reasons explaining why they were excluded after progressing through the recruitment process.
“The Service has consequently left our clients without any ascertainable explanation for the apparent reversal of their recruitment status, notwithstanding the official representations made to them during the process,” the petition stated.
Marshal Attorneys said the circumstances surrounding the applicants’ exclusion raised questions about compliance with the legal framework governing the recruitment exercise, the consistency of the selection process and the proper determination of individual candidates’ eligibility.
The solicitors cited Section 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Nigerian Customs Service Act, 2023, which they said vests relevant policy-making and recruitment responsibilities in the Nigerian Customs Service Board.
According to the lawyers, the exercise of those responsibilities must be consistent with applicable recruitment criteria, approved guidelines and the principles governing lawful and fair administrative decision-making.
The firm, however, acknowledged that a provisional appointment offer does not necessarily amount to an unconditional appointment and that the Service retains the authority to disqualify candidates on lawful grounds.
It said that such authority must nevertheless be exercised in accordance with the applicable conditions and procedures.
The lawyers maintained that excluding candidates without communicating the basis of the decision raised legitimate questions about whether the governing recruitment framework had been followed.
They also questioned the consistency of the selection process and whether the individual eligibility of the affected applicants had been properly determined.
What Applicants Want
In the petition, the solicitors outlined five demands they want the Nigerian Customs Service to address within seven days of receiving the letter.
They demanded an immediate review of their clients’ exclusion and disclosure of the specific grounds, screening records and applicable criteria upon which each candidate’s exclusion was based.
They asked the Service to disclose the recruitment regulations, approved deadlines and administrative directives governing the transition from publication of the final list and issuance of provisional appointment offers to selection for basic training.
They also demanded clarification of any additional criteria introduced or applied during the process.
The lawyers called for the recall and reinstatement of their clients into the recruitment process, with appropriate arrangements for them to participate in basic training where a review establishes that they satisfied the applicable requirements.
They demanded the issuance of formal appointment letters and consequential employment documentation to candidates whose eligibility and entitlement are confirmed and against whom no lawful ground for disqualification exists.
They requested that the Service communicate the outcome of the review and the remedial measures adopted within seven days of receiving the petition.
The solicitors said their clients expected the Service to provide clear explanations and take appropriate corrective action where the review establishes that the exclusions were unwarranted.
Applicants Threaten Legal Action
The lawyers warned that their clients were prepared to seek legal redress if the issues raised in the petition remained unresolved after the stipulated period.
“TAKE NOTICE that in the event that the issues raised in the instant correspondence remain unresolved, we have the instructions of our clients to seek the appropriate legal redress without further recourse to you,” the letter stated.
The firm expressed confidence that the Comptroller-General of Customs could resolve the matter but made clear that its clients were prepared to pursue legal remedies if their demands were not addressed.
The petition was accompanied by documents intended to support the applicants’ claims and establish their participation in the recruitment exercise.
These included a copy of the published final list of successful candidates and a schedule containing the names, telephone numbers, email addresses and signatures of affected applicants.
The solicitors also listed individual application forms, confirmation of selection for participation, examination verification slips, evidence that the candidates’ names appeared on the published final list, medical fitness reports, provisional appointment notifications and confirmations that the offers had been accepted.
Other documents listed as enclosures included certificates of drug tests from the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) and means of identification.
The documents, according to the petition, were submitted in support of the affected candidates’ demand for a review of their exclusion and clarification of their recruitment status.