Eleven bank accounts of some companies and an individual were on Wednesday frozen by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
The announcement came after the CBN got an interim order from the Federal High Court, Abuja division, to freeze 11 bank accounts of 5 companies and an individual for 45 days to enable it to conduct investigations into suspicious activities.
The order follows an exparte motion, dated March 12 and filed on March 16, seeking the mandatory order of the court to direct First City Monument Bank (FCMB) Limited, to freeze all transactions on the listed accounts and all other bank accounts of the defendants for 180 days pending the outcome of investigation and inquiry currently being conducted by the CBN.
This disclosure is contained in documents posted by the apex bank on its website on Wednesday, April 7, 2021.
According to the statement from the CBN who is the plaintiff, the listed names of the defendants/respondents include Albert Austin Ugochukwu with 2 bank accounts, Belfour Energy & Allied Services, Belfour Oil and Gas Limited with 3 bank accounts, Circle Flow Integrated Services, Kacynaus Reality Nigeria Limited with 3 bank accounts and Tasmara Integrated Services.
The court document also states that the order was given by the court upon reading the Affidavit in support of the Application, Affidavit of Urgency, Verifying Affidavit and Affidavit of Non-Multiplicity of action all deposed by an Assistant Manager of the CBN, Central Business District, Oluwatoyosi Suwebat Oladipo, together with an attached exhibit.
The order from the Federal High Court partly reads, “An interim Order is made empowering the applicant to direct the Head Office of First City Monument Bank Ltd to freeze forthwith all transactions on the bank accounts listed on the motion paper for a period of 45 days only pending the outcome of investigation currently being conducted by the Central Bank of Nigeria.’’
The document also states that the order which was given by the Presiding Judge, A.R. Mohammed, was renewable on expiration but only on good reasons shown and any person affected by this order was entitled to approach the court to seek to set aside, discharge or have the order reviewed for good reasons, it said.
