Legal Representation Delays Hearing in E-Customs Concession Project Suit Against FG

The scheduled hearing in the lawsuit filed by E-Customs HC Project Limited and Bionica Technologies Limited against the Federal Government faced an unexpected delay due to a legal representation dispute. The suit, which involves several government entities as defendants, including the Federal Government, Attorney-General of the Federation, Finance Minister, Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission, Nigeria Customs Service, Trade Modernization Project Limited, Huawei Technologies Limited, African Finance Corporation, and Bergman Security Consultant and Supply Limited, is a challenge to the alleged unlawful modifications made to a concession agreement by the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) under the former Comptroller General, Col. Ahmed Ali (rtd). During the court proceedings before Justice Inyang Ekwo, a new counsel, Pius Nnoli, unexpectedly appeared on behalf of E-Customs HC Project Limited, challenging the representation by the senior lawyer, Ahmed Raji SAN. The attempt by Nnoli to take over the case was met with strong opposition from Ahmed Raji, who claimed to be the lawful counsel engaged by the company. The legal dispute encountered a hiccup when Nnoli informed Justice Ekwo that the senior lawyer had filed a voluminous counter affidavit against his representation. He requested a short adjournment to respond and present the legal instruments by which he was engaged by his client. Upon inquiry by the court, Raji SAN confirmed that Nnoli was served with the counter affidavit in the courtroom, validating his participation in the case. Justice Ekwo decided to grant Nnoli time to respond to the counter affidavit and, with no objections from the lawyers involved, adjourned the hearing in the case until Thursday, October 26, 2023. The two aggrieved companies, E-Customs HC Project Limited and Bionica Technologies (West Africa) Limited, jointly filed the lawsuit to challenge the alleged unlawful and fraudulent concession of the E-custom project to African Finance Corporation. They narrated how they had initially proposed a custom modernization project for the benefit of the Nigeria Customs Service, which received anticipated approval from President Muhammadu Buhari on September 2, 2020. However, issues arose when the Nigeria Customs Service unilaterally reviewed the Federal Executive Council approval and imposed various conditions, including shareholding and governance structure. The companies argued that the NCS’s authority to unilaterally review the FEC’s approval was contested but to no avail. To their surprise, they discovered that the Nigeria Customs Service had executed a concession agreement with an unknown company, Trade Modernization Project, Huawei Technologies Company, and African Finance Corporation, in total breach of the memorandum of understanding prepared by the Attorney-General of the Federation in conjunction with the Finance Minister. The plaintiffs contended that Trade Modernization Project was incorporated in April 2022 and could not have obtained the necessary approvals and certificates for the E-Customs Project. They sought the court’s declaration that the government’s decision to enter into a concession agreement with Trade Modernization Project, Huawei Technologies Company, and African Finance Corporation was illegal and in violation of the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission Act 2005. The companies also sought a declaration that E-Customs HC Project Limited was the rightful concessionaire approved by the Federal Executive Council in September 2020, in accordance with the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Act. Additionally, they requested the court to direct the Federal Government, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Finance Minister, Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission, and Nigeria Customs Service to consummate the E-Customs Project with the 1st plaintiff, as approved by the FEC. Finally, the two plaintiffs demanded that the court compel the defendants to pay them a sum of two hundred million naira as the cost of litigation.

Alleged Harassment: OAU Lecturer Sues Colonel, Police CP, Seeks N10m Damages

A University lecturer and human rights activist, Prof. Chijioke Uwasomba has dragged Colonel Abubakar Abdulkadir Alkali of the Special Investigation Bureau of the Nigeria Army Military Police before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory over alleged harassment and violation of his fundamental human rights. He also demanded the sum of N10 million as exemplary damages for threat to arrest him by the police at the instance of the Army Colonel. The Commissioner of Police, FCT Command, was also listed as second respondent in the suit marked W/7744/23. The plaintiff in the fundamental human rights enforcement suit filed by his lawyers, Onyeisi Chiemeke and Abdul Mahmud, claimed he got series of invitations with threats of arrest from the police following a breach of agreement by the respondent. Uwasomba, a lecturer in the Department of English at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife therefore demanded, among others, “the sum of N10 million as exemplary damages for the said wrongful invitation” and threat to arrest him by the personnel of the police at the instance of Colonel Alkali for no legal justification. He also demanded a declaration that the orders for his invitation and arrest by the police and its agents “based on the misleading information” by Alkali of a business transaction (agency relationship) between them was wrong, unlawful, illegal and a violation of his fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed by Sections 35, 41 and 44 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and Article 6, 12 and 14 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The OAU don asked the court to restrain the respondents, their servants, agents and/or privies, jointly or severally, or any law enforcement agency acting pursuant to their instructions from threatening, harassing, arresting or detaining him and members of his family based on the complaint of the first respondent, in violation of his rights to dignity of human person, personal liberty, freedom of movement and right to work guaranteed by Sections 34, 35, 37 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. Uwasomba also asked the court to declare that the first and second respondents were not empowered by the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any other statute or instrument to threaten, harass, arrest or detain him in violation of his Fundamental Rights to dignity of human person, personal liberty, freedom of movement and right to work guaranteed by Sections 35, 37 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for hearing of the case.

NACAT sues Ag CBN gov, deputy, CCB over non-assets declaration 

The Network Against Corruption and Trafficking Foundation (NACAT) has dragged the Acting Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr. Folashodun Shonubi and its deputy, Mr Edward Adamu before a Federal High Court Abuja for failure to declare their assets to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB). In a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1182/2023, filed by the group’s legal counsel, Festus Keyamo Chambers, also mentioned the Chairman, Code of Conduct Bureau, as a respondent in the matter. The applicant premised the suit on the strength of Section 1(1) and (2) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, 2011.  Specifically, the suit dated August 25, 2023 is requesting for the documents wherein Mr Shonubi deliberately refused to declare interest in the following companies: Intameks Ltd– RC13086; Kirby’s Place Resources Ltd – RC1215845; The Pekaboo Company Ltd – RC1395011; Ehlkuhile Investment Ltd– RC857442; Iscopeng Ltd – RC1431044; and Kilima Technologies Ltd – RC1218250. Similarly, the applicant is demanding the assets and declaration forms of Adamu, wherein he failed to declare his interest in the following Companies: Pinnacle Solutions Network Ltd – RC698688; Elad Global Resources Limited – RC933366 and Global World Frontier Services Nig. Ltd – RC772500. An affidavit in support of the originating motion exparte deposed to by Stanley Ugagbe, the operational Manager of NACAT stated the respondents had vehemently refused to avail them of the documents.  Ugagbe averred that the 2nd Respondent is listed as a Director in the following Companies: Intameks Ltd– RC13086; Kirby’s Place Resources Ltd – RC1215845; The Pekaboo Company Ltd – RC1395011; Ehlkuhile Investment Ltd – RC857442; Iscopeng Ltd – RC1431044; and Kilima Technologies Ltd – RC1218250. Also, the deponent claimed that the 3rd Respondent is listed as a Director in the following Companies: Pinnacle Solutions Network Ltd – RC698688; Elad Global Resources Limited – RC933366 and Global World Frontier Services Nig. Ltd – RC772500. As public officers, Ugagbe stated, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have statutory obligations to declare in their Asset Declaration Forms, the interests they have in the above-named companies, while assuming their respective offices as a Acting Governor and Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN. “That the Applicant has a right under the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, to access the Assets and Liabilities Declaration Forms of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, in the records of the 1st Respondent, with respect to declaration of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ interests in the said companies. “That the Applicant has made demand under the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 to the Respondents, for the Respondents to produce the Assets and Liabilities Declaration Forms where the 2nd and 3rd Respondents declared their interests in the said Companies, but the Respondents failed, refused and neglected to produce the said documents. The Applicant submitted that it needed the intervention of the Court to compel the 1st and 2nd Respondents to grant the request of the Applicant, in accordance with Section 1 (3) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Applicants predicated their prayers on the ground that they had written letters dated 3rd July, 2023 and 14th August, 2023, requesting the Respondents to produce to it, the said documents but they refused. “The Respondents have failed, refused and neglected to produce the said documents requested from them, contrary to section 4 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011” the counsel stated.  As public officers, the counsel submitted that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have statutory obligations to declare in their Asset Declaration Forms, the interests they have in the above stated companies, while assuming their respective offices as Acting Governor and Deputy Governor of the CBN. NACAT is a non-governmental organization, a pro-democracy civil society organization, whose objectives include contributing to the global war against corruption, financial crimes, terrorism and economic sabotage.

Alleged Fraud: Aviation Perm Sec sued over non-disclosure of contract details

As President Bola Ahmed Tinubu prepares to assign portfolios to his ministerial nominees who have been screened by the Senate, whoever becomes the Minister of Aviation may have a lawsuit waiting for them as a suit has been filed against the Permanent Secretary of the ministry, Dr Emmanuel Meribole. The Federal High Court, Abuja, will on September 2, hear the ex-parte motion instituted against Mr Meribole over failure to declare contract details of the ministry.  The plaintiff, Incorporated Trustees of Patriotic Youth Organization of Nigeria, through their lawyer, Mr Peter Abang, in suit FHC/ABM/CS/969/2023, dated July 17, 2023, prayed the court for an order granting leave to the applicant to apply for Judicial Review to its reliefs. The plaintiff prays the court for a declaration that the 1st Respondent (Permanent Secretary) has a statutory and public duty to furnish the Applicant information and details concerning the 2nd Respondent as contained in the Applicant’s letter of request dated 23rd June 2023.  He also prayed the court for a declaration that the refusal or failure of the 1st Respondent to respond to or comply with the Applicant’s request as contained in its letter dated 23 June 2023 constitutes a refusal failure of the 1st Respondent’s statutory and or public duty to the Applicant and is, therefore, unlawful, illegal, abuse of powers, abuse of discretion and ultra vires.  Barrister Abang urged the court to make an order directing and compelling the 1st Respondent, either by its staff, officers, privies, servants or otherwise howsoever described to issue, comply with and or make available to the Applicant or his privies or Counsel, information and details of contracts and expenditures as contained in the Applicant’s letter of 23° June 2023 as well as accept payment of the appropriate fees from the Applicant forthwith.  Some of the contract details being requested, in a letter dated June 23, 2023 include: Airstrip and other Capital Contracts by the Ministry from 2020 till date; list and locations of all Project Vehicles for the above mentioned contracts; list and locations of all Official vehicles the Ministry, including that of the former Permanent Secretary;  Contract Executed from Over-head from 2022 December till date; details of Approved foreign Programmes for the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry and its Agencies from 2022 December till date; Performance Management System Contracts and Expenditures from 2020 till date; Any other relevant document in relation to the foregoing. According to the applicant, following investigation being undertaken by the Applicant into the activities of the 2nd Respondent, spearheaded by the 1st Respondent and his various activities in office, the Applicant has a reasonable suspicion that there has been several lapses and various misconducts by the 1st Respondent, in relation to the discharge of his duties.  He said the request made in the letter is to enable the Applicant to compare the ownership of the assets and properties declared by the 1st Respondent in his Assets Declaration Forms as well as his lifestyle, with any other assets and properties which it suspects to be linked either to the 1st Respondent, his Children or even other third parties suspected to be acting for them.