The dispute between the Abia State Government and a firm , Mauritz Walton Nigeria Limited, over the N12 billion debt allegedly owed the firm by Abia State for its role in the refund of $151,410,816.39 to the state from Federal Government’s excess foreign loan deduction engaged a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Kubwa for three days last week.
From Monday till Wednesday, Justice K. N. Ogbonnaya entertained arguments from parties in the suit marked: FCT/HC/CV/2470/2017 filed by Mauritz Waltton, in which it claimed that Abia govt reneged in honouring a contractual agreement entitling it to 30 per cent of the $151,410,816.39 it assisted the state to recover from the Fed Govt being excess deductions on foreign loans and miscellaneous charges.
The firm, which claimed to have carried out similar services for other states, said it was engaged by the state in 2014 as a consultant to help retrieve the funds after its proposal to that effect was accepted. It added that after its successful execution of the contract, Abia govt became unwilling to fulfill its side of the bargain.
Defendants in the suit – Abia State Govt, the state’s Attorney General (AG), Ziplon Concept Ltd and a commercial bank – have faulted the plaintiff’s claims, with state government and the AG arguing among others, that the refund was not solely facilitated by Mauritz Walton.
At last week’s proceedings, Mauritz Walton’s Group Executive Chairman, Dr. Mauric Ibe continued his testimony as the plaintiff’s witness and was cross-examined by some of the defendants’ lawyers.
While being cross-examined on Monday by lawyer to Abia State and its AG, Tony Ogbulafor, Ibe said the contract executed by his firm was based on his proposal to the state government and not a government tender.
He added: “The process of consultancy for Paris Club Refund was never at any point in time seen or recorded as a regular contract as it was never tendered or went through procurement board. The contract was based on my intellectual property and proposal written to every state in the country.
“This was based on a reconciliation of the debt profile of each state, from information gathered by forensic audit, and put in form of a proposal I wrote the states. This was reviewed fully and thoroughly by each state. They engaged me to further review what we have proposed to them, to determine the veracity of what we have put to them through the Ministry of Finance, Debt Management Office (DMO) and the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation (OAGF).
“So, it was not a general contract tendered, that would go through procurement process. At no time throughout the process that a state government, Abia or any other, asked me to appear before any committee to ratify the contract.”
At the conclusion of Ogbulafor’s cross-examination of the witness, plaintiff’s lawyer, Isaac Anumudu, objected to the court’s acceptance of the statement of defence filed by the fourth defendant (Ziplon) by its laywer, Jeff Njikeonye on the grounds that it was filed over two years into the case, and without first obtaining the leave of the court.
In a ruling on Tuesday, Justice Ogbonnaya upheld Anumudu’s objection, adding that it was unfortunate that Ziplon, which applied to be joined as a defendant in the case and was allowed, failed to enter its defence, but resurface after two years, three months, and two days, to file a statement of defence and dumped same on the court.
Justice Ogbonnaya noted that Ziplon relinguished its right to enter a defence during the court’s proceedings of March 26, 2019, adding that it is imperative to note that fair hearing is not an open cheque which anybody can cash anytime, anywhere, otherwise it will lose its efficacy.”
The judge faulted Njikeonye’s challenge of the competence of the plaintiff’s amended statement, wondering why he waited over two years to do so even when the the amendment was as a result a consequential order of the court.
“This court is bound by its record, because doing otherwise will be judicial stupidity and gross rascality. I am not stupid. The fourth defendant is held captive by the submission its counsel made on March 26, 2019. And, filing its response to the statement on oath of plaintiff is out of time. That is order of the court,” the judge held, but proceeded to Njikeonye to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness on grounds of fair hearing.
While being cross-examined on Wednesday by Njikeonye, Ibe justified why his firm wrote a petition against Abia govt and its officials to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), alleging some underhand dealings on the part of the state.
Ibe stated that his firm was engaged by the then governor, Theodore Orji and that after it executed the contract and demanded for the payment of its due 30 percent of the recovered sum, Abia government allegedly brought in Ziplon, claiming it had renegotiated with it (Ziplon) to carry out the job for the state.
The witness added: “My Lord, the 4th defendant wrote to the plaintiff that the state government will accept to pay the fee, if he accepts a 40/60 percent sharing formula. The Abia State government offered N250m to me and the 4th defendant (Ziplon) in the presence of Jeff Njikonye (counsel to the 4th defendant), and representatives of Government of Abia state.
“In the meeting, it was revealed that Ziplon had already been paid the sum of N100m and the issue became of what happens to the N250m offered. The then Accountant General of Abia State was shocked to learn that I did not know that N100m had been disbursed to Ziplon. If I recall vividly, counsel to the fourth defendant interjected and said the N100m was given to the former governor.
“At that point, I told him, I will not be part of money laundering for any individual or entity, because of my career and profession. I proceeded to write a petition to the EFCC against the Abia State Government and some of its officials. Investigation is ongoing.”
Further hearing in the case has been adjourned till October 4. – The Nation.
