Paris Club refunds: Court slates March 25 for judgment

A Federal High Court, Abuja has slated March 25, 2022, to deliver judgment in a suit filed by the 36 State Governments against the plan by the Federal Government to deduct from states’ funds to settle debts owed consultants engaged by the states and Local Governments in relation to the Paris Club refunds.

The trial Judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date, on Tuesday, after counsel to parties adopted their written submissions in the suit where-in the state governments want the court to restrain President Muhammadu Buhari and others from effecting the planned deduction from states’ funds to settle the debt owed consultants engaged by states and local governments.

Sunday Ameh (SAN) representing the plaintiffs, while adopting his final submission, argued that the defendants misconstrued the kernel of his clients’ suit and faulted the argument by the defendants that the suit was challenging existing judgments given by the court in favour of some of the consultants.

“We are not challenging the judgments, we are saying the way the Federal Government and its agencies are going about enforcing the judgments violates sections 120 and 162 of the Constitution,” he said.

Ameh stated that his clients were not averse to the issuance of promissory notes to the consultants (also sued as defendants) by the federal government but became uncomfortable when it (FG) issued a notice to commence deduction from the states’ accounts.

ALSO READ FROM  NIGERIAN TRIBUNE

• (BREAKING): NDLEA Declares DCP Abba Kyari Wanted Over Alleged Involvement In Drug Deal
• Igboho Files $1 Million Suit Against Benin Republic For Unlawful Detention, Violation Of Rights

He added that since the Federal Government agreed that the contractors were owed in relation to the services they rendered, it should settle the indebtedness without deploying funds belonging to the states and local governments.

Ameh contended that it is the nation’s commonwealth that some individuals were attempting to take out of the Federation Accounts, stating that “if the Federal Government is inclined to pay the debt, it should look for another way to do so and leave the funds belonging to the state governments and local governments alone.”

Defendants’ lawyers, including Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Maimuna Lami Shiru (Acting Director, Civil Litigation, Federal Ministry of Justice) and Olusola Oke (SAN) faulted the competence of the suit and urged the court to dismiss it.

Olanipekun, who represented one of the consultants, Dr Ted Iseghohi-Edwards (14th defendant), described the plaintiffs as meddlesome interlopers, noting that the state governments claimed to be fighting for the Local Governments, a distinct tier of government, without the consent of the third tier of government.

He prayed the court to dismiss the suit for being time-wasting and constituting an abuse of the court process.

Mrs Shiru argued that not only was the suit statute barred, but the plaintiffs are also seeking the impossible by asking the court to sit on appeal over judgments earlier delivered by it and other courts of coordinate jurisdiction.

She further argued that the decision by the Federal Government to issue promissory notes to the consultant as a way of settling the debt owed them was legitimate, adding that the plaintiffs cannot distance themselves from the decision taken by the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) in engaging some of the consultants.

Mrs Shiru represented the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria; the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Accountant General of the Federation (AGoF), the Ministry of Finance Incorporated and the Debt Management Office (DMO), sued as the first to sixth defendants in the suit.

Oke, who represented Riok Nigeria Limited and Prince Nicholas Ukachukwu argued that the suit is without merit and should be dismissed and that the promissory notes by the Federal Government were charged on its properties and not those of the states.

Oke stated that the judgment obtained by his clients was against the Local Governments and not the plaintiffs, adding that the local governments have admitted the contract awarded to his clients.

Marburg Virus: What You Need To Know About Disease Recently Detected In West Africa

Paris Club refunds: Court slates March 25 for judgment