The Attorneys-General of the 36 states have lost the suit challenging the Federal Government to stop deducting $418m Paris Club Refund from Federation Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC) to settle its consultants.
This was the Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday dismissed a suit, thus giving the Federal Government the leeway to deduct the money to settle debts owed consultants engaged by the states and local governments in relation to the Paris Club refunds.
Attorneys-General of the states had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1313/2021, challenged FG’s decision to withdraw money from state accounts to settle consultants that facilitated the Paris Club Refund.
The Plaintiffs told the court that FG had insisted that the fund it intends to withdraw from the accounts, monthly, was to service a debt for contracts that were allegedly executed for the states.
Read also:
- Paris Club Refund: AGF Defies Buhari’s Directive To Pay Consultants’ $350m Fee
- FG Releases $2.246b Final Paris Club Refunds To States
- Buhari Orders Payment of Outstanding Paris Club Refund
They told the court that after the said contracts were carefully scrutinized, as well as a purported judgement debt the FG relied on, it was found that the 36 states were not parties to court action that resulted to the judgment debt.
Besides, they submitted that the purported contracts claimed to have been executed for the states, were not known to any of the 36 state governments and was therefore a phony contract, adding that FG was the only party to the court case that led to the said judgment.
Among those cited as Defendants in the matter, were the Attorney General of the Federation, the Finance Minister, Accountant General of the Federation and all banks in Nigeria, Central Bank of Nigeria, Debt Management Office, Federation Account Allocation Committee, Incorporated Trustees of Association of Local Government of Nigeria, ALGON, as well as the consultants.
However, the Defendants, through their lawyers, among whom included Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, Maimuna Lami Shiru (Acting Director, Civil Litigation, Federal Ministry of Justice), and Chief Olusola Oke, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of competence.
They described the Defendants 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.
FG, maintained that its decision to deduct the fund to settle some consultants, was based on a previous verdict of the court.
It argued that since the court had earlier decided on the matter, proceeding with the suit would amount to a high court sitting on appeal over its own judgement.
“The plaintiffs have not appealed against the judgments of this court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) that the contracts awarded to the consultants are valid,” Mrs Shiru submitted.
FG told the court that based on an earlier judgement of court, the former Chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum, NGF, Abdulazeez Yari, issued a promissory note on behalf of the governors to the effect that the $418m be deducted from their money in the federation account.
It further argued that the decision to issue promissory notes to the consultants, as a way of settling the debt owed them, was legitimate, stressing that the Plaintiffs could not distance themselves from decision of the NGF that engaged some of the consultants.
Justice Inyang Ekwo said “The Attorney-General cannot sue, except when authorized by the governor”, noting that the suit exposed constitutional limit of an AG to institute certain actions.
“The Plaintiffs have no legal or statutory power to challenge the case of their employer. Since the Plaintiffs do not have the locus standi, the issue of cause of action do not arise.”
Justice Ekwo held that that the suit amounted to an abuse of court process since it sought the review of a subsisting judgement that involved both the NGF and ALGON.
He held that there was evidence that both the NGF and ALGON had indeed entered into an agreement that led to the court judgement.
“The Plaintiffs, not being members of the NGF and ALGON, are not proper persons to state what transpired or the agreement that was reached.
“On the whole, I do not see any merit in the case and I accordingly dismiss it as lacking in merit,” the court held.
Justice Ekwo noted that the action of the plaintiff amounted to an abuse of court process and subsequently dismissed the suit for lacking in merit.
