Suspension

A properly handled suspension follows a short sequence.

The decision is made because there is a genuine reason to remove the person from the workplace, not simply because an allegation was made.

It is confirmed in writing, stating that it is a neutral act pending investigation, that it is not a disciplinary sanction, that it is on full pay, what the employee may and may not do during it, who to contact, and an expected timeframe.

The investigation then actually happens, promptly. Suspension is justified by the investigation it enables, and an employer who suspends and then does nothing for three months has turned a neutral act into something else.

The employee is kept informed, and the position is reviewed as matters develop.

At the end, the outcome is communicated in writing: either the matter is closed and the employee returns, or a disciplinary process follows with the allegation put and a hearing held.

Handover, access to systems and return of equipment should be dealt with practically, without treating the person as though they have already been found guilty.

The National Industrial Court has taken a clear view on indefinite and unpaid suspension.

A suspension that runs for months without pay, without an investigation progressing and without any conclusion, has been treated as unlawful and as capable of amounting to a repudiation of the contract. Employees in that position have succeeded in claims, and employers who use suspension as an indefinite holding pattern are exposed.

That pattern is common in Nigeria. An allegation is made, the employee is sent home without pay, and nothing further happens because the employer has neither the appetite to investigate nor the willingness to dismiss.

For an employee in that position, the practical steps are to write asking for confirmation of the reason, the expected duration and the pay position, keep copies, continue to make themselves available for the investigation, and take advice if the position continues without progress. Resigning in frustration weakens a claim; documenting the position strengthens it.

For employers, the safer approach is short, paid and purposeful. Suspend where there is a real reason, investigate quickly, and conclude. Where the contract or handbook allows suspension without pay as a penalty, that is a different thing and it requires a hearing first.

Three ways an employee stops attending while remaining employed.

Suspension is investigative. The employee is removed from duty while something is looked into, normally on full pay, and it should end when the investigation does.

Garden leave applies during a notice period. The employee has resigned or been given notice, remains employed and paid, but is kept away from clients, systems and information until the notice expires. It protects the business without relying on a restraint clause.

Interdiction is the term used in parts of the Nigerian public service for suspension from duty, often with a portion of salary withheld under the applicable service rules, and it operates within that specific framework.

The common thread is that the employment continues in all three, which means the employer's obligations continue too. An employer who stops paying without a contractual or statutory basis has done something the contract did not permit.

Suspension solves nothing by itself. It buys time for an investigation, and an employer who does not use that time has simply created a problem.

It also damages the employee reputationally even when they are cleared, particularly in small industries, which is why it should be used where there is a real reason rather than reflexively.

For employees, challenging a suspension while still employed is difficult, and most wait until the matter concludes, by which point the harm is done.

And contractual provisions allowing suspension without pay are not a free hand. Where they are used as a penalty, the disciplinary process still has to be followed, and an unpaid suspension imposed without a hearing is exposed.