*AGF is bias, working against public interest – Govs Forum
*No, There’s no violation in deduction process, Malami fires back
The Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) has accused the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), of bias in his handling of the disputed $418million allegedly owed private contractors and firms by the 36 States and Local Governments in relation to the Paris Club refund.
The NGF wondered why the AGF, as the chief law officer for the country, was eager to transfer public funds to private individuals and entities even when the alleged debt was being disputed and is the subject of pending litigations.
In a statement made available on Monday by its Head, Media and Public Affairs, Abdulrazaque Bello-Barkindo, the NGF faulted Malami’s claim that it was lawful for the Federal Government to deduct the disputed $418million from the accounts of the 36 states to settle the alleged debt.
Faulting payments already made to some individuals and entities, the forum argued that the AGF, being a public officer ought to be driven by the need to protect public interest and ensure that public funds are not unjustly transferred to private individuals and interests with doubtful claims.
The NGF said its reaction was sequel to a statement last Friday by AGF’s media aide, Umar Gwandu, in which he attempted to justify FG’s planned deduction of $418m from states’ accounts to settle private contractors and/or consultants for alleged work done in relation to the Paris Club Refund to the States and Local Governments.
The NGF’s statement reads in part: “The decision by the AGF to throw his weight behind these consultants who have been battling desperately to grab $418m from the accounts of states and local governments raises questions of propriety and the spirit of justice.
“The AGF is supposed to be the chief arbiter in all matters concerning Nigerians, especially the poor masses of this country. It is incumbent upon him to, not just ensure that justice is done, but that justice is seen to have been done.
“The undue haste, with which the statement was issued even before the service on the AGF of the court processes and the order dated 5th November, 2021 restraining the Federal Government, seems to suggest that there is a special relationship between the Office of the HAGF and the consultants over and above Nigerian citizens, whose interest the HAGF as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation is statutorily bound to always protect.
“The statement also suggests that the restraining order issued last Friday not only unsettled preconceived plans and angered the unnamed ‘government officers’ referred to by the media aide.
“The media aide to the HAGF justifies the deductions on the basis that they are made pursuant to four court judgments; two of which are consent judgments and/or that the NGF/States and LGAs consented, expressed no objection to the payments and had already paid part of the debts to the said contractors and consultants.
“The statement by the media aide to the HAGF however conveniently and deliberately failed to name the judgments under reference and whether they are on appeal or challenged in any other way.
“He also failed to specify which of the four judgments authorized payments and in what proportion to each of the contractors.
“While it is very easy to argue as the AGF does, that the NGF and ALGON took no early steps to appeal as they should have done, it is important to inform the Nigerian public that state governors have since appealed and are challenging the judgments in various courts.
“Interestingly, the AGF has been served all these processes. Nevertheless, this was ignored and payment was authorized to be made and has been processed with unprecedented speed not common in the public service.
“It must be stated that between the NGF and AGF, the latter is in more vantage constitutional position and has a legal responsibility and burden to defend public interest.
“The AGF should have therefore initiated appeals against the said judgments once his attention was drawn to them, because public interest was at stake involving huge sums of money meant for the provision of public services.
“It must be noted that the state governments were not parties to any of the said judgments. It should be further stated that the Office of the AGF failed to professionally defend the cases leading to those judgments and the courts commented on that unprofessional attitude.
“While we are constrained not to comment on a subject which is sub-judice, we have a responsibility to the public to respond in some detail to the statement issued by the Office of the AGF in order to put the records straight.
“Any discerning legal mind would find no difficulty in concluding that the so-called judgments under reference are dripping with too many irregularities bordering on competence and lack of jurisdiction which are the bases why some of them are being challenged on appeal and in other courts. No diligent public officer would act on such judgments by recommending payment.
“It is even more curious that the AGF also recommended payments to some contractors allegedly based on Judgments that did not make any monetary award or on claims that were struck out.
“The AGF may need to explain to Nigerians why these particular judgment debts are given unusual attention and priority and processed with supersonic speed over and above all others; some of which preceded these so-called judgments and have been pending for settlement by the AGF for several years.
“While it is convenient to say that part of these judgment debts have been paid with the release of USD$86,546,526.65 and N19,439,225,871.11 in 2016 and $100m in 2018 to the contractors with the concurrence of the NGF; that does not detract from the fact that they were payments wrongly made which ought not to have been made even if they were products of consent Judgments. States can still go after the contractors to recover the funds wrongly made.
“It should concern the HAGF that ALGON disowned the contracts claimed by RIOK and the same was duly communicated to him requesting him to prevent the use of LG funds to “settle dubious and illegal claims’’
“Was the AGF not concerned that several contractors are laying claim to legal fees for the same Paris Club Refund? Was it lost on the AGF on the detailed procedure available under the law how legal fees can be claimed in deserving cases?
“One of the strange payments made is that of USD$47,831,920 to Panic Alert Security Systems Ltd/George Uboh for allegedly reviewing a 16-page judgment for the then factional NGF. Can the Office of the HAGF point to any consent judgment awarding that sum to PANIC Alert? Did the NGF’s letter of 20th January, 2020 relied upon by the HAGF ever recommend the payment of any sum?
“LINAS and NED Nwoko in this scheme are walking away with US$68,658,193.83 state funds allegedly for legal consultancy services. Is the AGF not aware that the work alleged to have been done by him was already contained in a FAAC Reconciliation Committee Report constituted in 2005 submitted in 2007 with recommendations on how states and LGAs should be refunded over charges from the Paris Club Refunds.
“Dr. Ted Iseghohi-Edwards has been paid the sum of USD$159m in promissory notes, yet he had his matter in Suit No FCT/HC/CV/1353/18 struck out on November 10th, 2020.
“Furthermore, the legal basis for his claim is rooted in SUIT NO FHC/ABJ/CS/130/13: LINAS INTERNATIONAL LTD & 235 ORS V FGN which clearly stated that he cannot benefit under the judgment because he was not a party in the case and cannot enforce the terms of the judgment. Contrary to the representation of the AGF, the EFCC’s report on TED was negative.
The governors therefore called on the general public to be alert and vigilant, adding that the debt relief granted Nigeria by the Paris Club in 2005 was meant to enable her have a respite and use the resources saved for meaningful development.
The NGF then said, “It was not for distribution to private persons to fund their luxurious lives; neither can Nigeria justify her borrowing funds all over the world to fund capital projects and turn round to disburse state resources to individuals in a manner that offends all public sensibilities
But the AGF has insisted that deductions from the Paris Club funds were ratified by several court judgements.
Malami, who was reacting to accusations against him by governors that he was working against the public’s interest by insisting on the payment of $418 million to private consultants from the accounts of state governments, said the Federal Government only had to step in to avoid forfeiting any of its assets, since it was also a defendant in the lawsuits against the states.
Reacting to the development during a telephone interview with Theideal online last night, the Special Assistant to the AGF on Media and Public Relations, Dr Umar Jibrilu Gwandu, stated that there was justification for the deductions saying that they were made pursuant to four court judgments.
He said, “It is important and necessary to state, at the onset, that the deductions were on account of four judgments in contention which were delivered at various times in 2014, 2015, 2017 & 2019. Two of these judgments were Consent Judgments based on Terms of Settlement entered into by NGF in 2017 & 2019. Again, two of the four judgments were based on an earlier judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in 2013.
‘’It is, however, amazing that from 2013 – 2021 neither NGF nor ALGON deemed it fit to either challenge or fully comply with any of these judgments. In furtherance of the consent and settlement, the NGF itself made payments in billions to the consultants based on the same judgment it is deriding now’’.
Though he did not name the judgments under reference, he added that they were not appealed or challenged in any other way. He also failed to specify which of the four judgments authorized payments and in what proportion to each of the contractors.
He added that the office of the HAGF also subjected the claims of the consultants/contractors to investigations by both the DSS and EFCC in order to further ascertain the veracity of the claims.
He said, “Recommendations for payment were thus made based on the positive outcomes of these investigations. Since both the NGF and ALGON that have entered into judicial settlement on account of which consent judgment was entered have refused to comply with these judgments, it became pertinent for the Federal Government to take the initiative in order to prevent a situation where the debt liability of NGF and ALGON would be transferred to the Federal Government and eventually executed against its assets and interest’’.
