THAT the 1st Respondent is yet to make the appointments, which is a ceremonial process of picking the first ranked of the forwarded 3 names.
THAT the 1st Respondent is yet to explain why the appointments have not been done. In any case, the 1st Respondent has no power to annul, vary and or disallow such appointments save for procedural integrity reason(s) which can only be authenticated by the competent body and in this case the Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission.
THAT the 1st Respondent, in a show of impunity, neglected, ignored and or disregarded the need to show cause for his inaction on appointment of the CEO of the 2nd Respondent by his blatant refusal to reply to the formal inquiry of the Applicant/Petitioner as dated March 16, 2017. In the said letter, the Applicant/Petitioner noted that the April recruitment was conducted by a reputable firm of KPMG and the second one held in November 2016 was conducted by yet another reputable firm of PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC). The Applicant/Petitioner further invoked provisions of Article 35 and 232 of the Constitution and sought for information from the 1st Respondent and which information has not been forthcoming more than a month later and is unlikely to come. In the event this happens, as it is likely to happen, it will amount to discrimination of shortlisted candidates contrary to provisions of Article 27(4) of the Constitution.
THAT the recruitment does not have credibility and or integrity question considering they were conducted by KPMG and PWC, respectively. In any case, the 1st Respondent is not competent to claim or purport to cancel the appointments on perceived integrity question as long as the interviewing firms and the board of the 2nd Respondent followed the due process.