Governors’: Reasons why we file case against Malami on $418m Paris Club refund

Ibekimi Oriamaja Reports

State governors have released details on their battle against Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami, in order to stop the deduction of $418 million from their statutory allocations from source (SAN).

The details have been forwarded to the president, key government officials, stakeholders, and opinion leaders across the country in a document.

The governors, who are part of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), also laid out all of the facts as to why the money should not be paid to any consultant until the Supreme Court rules on the case.

They claim that neither the 36 states nor the NGF were aware of the contract and that the states and the governors’ body were not parties to the lawsuits.

They claimed that the said judgment contained no order against the states or the NGF.

The allegedly executed contracts, they claim, were for the benefit of local government areas.

They questioned why the Federal Government suddenly appeared at the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) meeting on October 22, 2021, to deduct $418 million as a first line charge from the Federation Account allocations due to them.

They claimed that the Federal Government’s proposed deductions violate Sections 120 and 162 of the 1999 Constitution.

They claimed the AGF contradicted himself by advising the President to approve the controversial $418 million payment.

In a letter to the President dated October 9, 2018, the same Malami advised the President to postpone any payment related to the $418 million until the outcome of the appeals court case.

After winning a case against one of the consultants in the Supreme Court on June 3, the governors questioned why Malami will not let the legal process play out on other cases involving the controversial fee.

They also stated that an August 1, 2018 report by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) faulted the Office of the AGF for abandoning or failing to file appeal on some of the cases that led to the $418 million demand.

According to the governors, the EFCC report also indicted some of the consultants for failing to provide any service to warrant payment of the $418 million.

The contracts in question were between three consultants and the Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON) for the recovery of a $3, 188, 078, 505.96 ($3.188 billion) Paris Club Debt refund.

Linas Nigeria Limited (20% of $3, 188, 078, 505.96); Riok Nigeria Limited (25% of $3, 188, 078, 505.96); and Dr. Ted Iseghohi-Edwards (awarded the sum of $318,807,950.59 as 10%) are the consultants demanding $418 million from the states.
The fourth case was worth approximately $68,658,192.83, which was the outstanding amount of a partially executed Judgment sum arising from Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/148/2017; Hon Ned Munir Nwoko vs. Nigeria Governors Forum & Ors.

The governors claimed that the states and the NGF were not informed of ALGON’s appointment of consultants and were not parties to the case that resulted in some judgments.

They did, however, admit that the NGF only entered into an out-of-court settlement of the case with Nwoko, the terms of which were filed on May 3, 2017.

However, they stated that no liabilities had been accepted or assumed by the Federal Government of Nigeria or the Federal Government agencies involved in the suit.

In addition, there was the case of Panic Alerts Security Systems Limited v. Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF and others).

According to the governors, the consent imposed no liability on the Federal Government, the Central Bank of Nigeria, or the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation.

The governors explained why they are adamantly opposed to Malami in a 16-page document.

According to the investigation, the important points in the document may cause the Federal Executive Council (FEC) to reject the request for approval of the $418 million payment.

According to reports, President Muhammadu Buhari directed Malami to withdraw his memo to the Council on the cash.

The governors made the following observations, among others, in explaining why they approached the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on the claims of some of the consultants and judgments at the High Court:

The Order was issued to compel compliance with a purported Presidential directive to issue Promissory Notes to satisfy judgment debts owed to the applicants.
The alleged presidential directive with which the Order of Mandamus requires compliance is unfounded because it contradicts the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

An Order of Mandamus can only be issued to compel the performance of a statutory duty; it cannot be used to enforce a judgment.

“The implication of the Supreme Court’s decision in this matter is unequivocal confirmation that any attempt to attach or use the funds of the federation’s states and the local government area council to satisfy agreements and contracts entered into by ALGON is unconstitutional,” the governors said.

“During the course of the meeting of the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) held on Friday 22nd October 2021, we became aware of the Federal Government’s decision and approval to deduct the sum of $418, 000, 000.00 (four hundred and eighteen million United States dollars) as first line charge from the amount accruing to the states in the Federation Account to liquidate certain judgment debts in relation to the Paris Club refund,” the document reads in part.

“The said decision and approval by the Federal Government were disclosed to the Finance Commissioners of all states of the Federation representing their respective States and Local Government Areas.”

“It is instructive to emphasize that the various states of the Federation were not parties to the purported Judgments from which the judgment debts sought to be satisfied arose.”

“In response to the protests of the various finance commissioners of the Federation’s states, the Federal Government suspended implementation for the month of October 2021, but stated that it would resume the following month.”

“Our strong position is that funds in the Federation Account can only be disbursed and appropriated in the manner prescribed by Section 162 of the Constitution, and that the proposed deduction by the federal government violates Sections 120 and 162 of the Constitution.”

The governors also provided information on the status of Nwoko’s alleged consent judgment.

“The issue of the existence of the consent judgment entered by the Nigeria Governors’ Forum with the Consultant, Ned Nwoko, has become an issue which we address herein,” the document continued.

“The Plaintiff in this case is Hon. Ned Nwoko, who sued the NGF as the first defendant, as well as the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, the Minister of Finance, the AGF, the CBN, the EFCC, Access Bank, and GTB as the other defendants.”

“The NGF entered into an out-of-court settlement of this case, the terms of which were filed on May 3, 2017.” On May 9, 2017, the Court issued a consent judgment based on the terms of the settlement.

“A review of the Consent Judgment reveals that no liabilities were accepted or assumed by the Federal Government of Nigeria and the federal government agencies involved in the suit.”

“The plaintiff attempted to enforce further payments based on the said Consent Judgment in SUIT NO.:FHC/ABJ/CS/148/2017 through Garnishee Proceedings initiated by a Motion Ex-parte filed on August 28, 2018 before Hon. Justice Dimgba of the Federal High Court Abuja Division.”

bThe governors also provided information on the status of Nwoko’s alleged consent judgment.

“The issue of the existence of the consent judgment entered by the Nigeria Governors’ Forum with the Consultant, Ned Nwoko, has become an issue which we address herein,” the document continued.

“The Plaintiff in this case is Hon. Ned Nwoko, who sued the NGF as the first defendant, as well as the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, the Minister of Finance, the AGF, the CBN, the EFCC, Access Bank, and GTB as the other defendants.”

“The NGF entered into an out-of-court settlement of this case, the terms of which were filed on May 3, 2017.” On May 9, 2017, the Court issued a consent judgment based on the terms of the settlement.

“A review of the Consent Judgment reveals that no liabilities were accepted or assumed by the Federal Government of Nigeria and the federal government agencies involved in the suit.”

“The plaintiff attempted to enforce further payments based on the said Consent Judgment in SUIT NO.:FHC/ABJ/CS/148/2017 through Garnishee Proceedings initiated by a Motion Ex-parte filed on August 28, 2018 before Hon. Justice Dimgba of the Federal High Court Abuja Division b.”