The N66.3 Billion released to Katsina State from the Paris Club refund in 2016 by the Federal Government has become a subject of litigation before the Abuja division of the Federal High Court.
In the lawsuit, a financial consulting firm, Mauritz Walton Nigeria Ltd, has dragged the state before the court over its alleged failure to honor a contractual agreement to pay the firm 20 percent of the $217.3million (N66.3b) due to it from the Paris Club refund.
Other defendants in the suit are the Finance Minister, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Accountant General of the Federation (AGF) and the United Bank for Africa (UBA).
The defendants have all urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs it seeks.
In his response to the suit, the Katsina State Government admitted, in its statement of defense, that it engaged the plaintiff in relation to the recovery of Paris Club refund.
The state, however, argued that the firm was not entitled to the 20 percent it claimed because it failed to meet the conditions contained in its engagement letter.
Katsina stated that it has “no reason to honor the demand of the plaintiff as contained in its letter of July 10, 2017 and at the subsequent meetings with the plaintiff as there was no any conclusive agreement between the fourth defendant and the plaintiff to pay the said 20 percent of the credited refunds as the plaintiff had been disengaged” by a letter of disengagement dated September 11, 2015.
The Finance Minister, the CBN, the AGF and UBA denied being a party to the agreement between the plaintiff and the Katsina State Government.
Specifically, the Finance Minister argued, in her statement of defense, that she lacked the power to withhold funds due to any state, as being sought by the plaintiff, except upon specific order of a court.
The minister further argued that all the refunds made to the Katsina State government were based on the directive of President Buhari and that the last tranche of the refund has been made to the state.
The plaintiff claimed before Justice Inyang Ekwo that it was appointed by Katsina State, by a letter dated August 18, 2014, with reference No: MOF/STAFF/409/1/31 to ascertain and recover the excess deductions by the Federal Government from its account to service its external debt between July 1995 and March 2002.
The firm stated, in its statement of claim that, it was agreed between it and the Katsina State government that it would be paid 20 percent of what was due to the state from the excess deduction, which is commonly referred to as the Paris Club refund.
Mauritz Watson’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Dr. Maurice Ibe, stated in his witness statement, that through his firm’s efforts, it was ascertained that Katsina State was entitled to $217,274,991.01 (estimated at N66,268,872,258.00 calculated at an exchange rate of $1 to N305) as Paris Club refund.
Ibe added that his firm’s efforts yielded further results when Buhari, in 2016, directed the payment of the first tranche of the Paris Club refund to states, including Katsina.
He stated that although almost all the amounts due to Katsina State has been paid into the state’s account, marked: 1019265062, in the United Bank for Africa (UBA), the state has refused and failed to pay his firm the 20 percent fees agreed between parties.
Ibe further stated that despite the pendency of the suit and existing interim orders by the court, restraining further payment to Katsina, the second defendant, CBN, on the instruction of the 1st defendant (finance minister) recently paid N35,364,610,435 to the fourth defendant (Kastina State), through the 5th defendant (UBA).
The plaintiff, whose legal team is anchored by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), is praying the court for several declaratory reliefs, particularly a declaration that it is entitled to N13,253,774,451.60 being 20 percent of the total N66.3b refund due to Katsina, by virtue of the agreement between parties.
Justice Ekwo, while adjourning the further hearing to October 14, 15 and 16, warned parties from taking any steps that would destroy the res (the subject of dispute) in the case.
