Connect with us

News and Report

AfDB crisis: Surprises ahead in boardroom voting power

Published

on

—Africa shoots self in the foot

—Only thing worse than being ignored by the US is being noticed by the US‭ ‬

A fresh angle emerged over the weekend about a possible loophole that exists in the voting power arrangement at the African Development Bank (AfDB) that could easily play regional shareholders into the hands of non-regional members should the current United States push actually means Washington wants the bank President, Akinwumi Adesina, out of office.

Many in diplomatic circles, who told Business A.M. they were following developments, think this may be the ultimate goal. But how the United States succeeds in achieving this goal can be seen in how, over the time, the voting power between regional and non-regional shareholders has closed up.

As at December 31, 2019, the distribution of voting power among the regional and non-regional executive directors of the bank was in the ratio of 3 to 2. Regional executive directors had 3,836,605 votes, representing 58.784 per cent, while the non-regional executive directors had 2,689,959 votes or 41.216 per cent.

People familiar with the situation told Business A.M. that even when there are no misgivings, when a powerful shareholder like the United States has an agenda to pursue the diplomatic horse-trading is often fierce.

One source in London put it bluntly: “Would you want to be on the wrong side of President Trump?” He asked, in reference to how such a diplomatic horse trading could play out should the US press some regional shareholders to take its position.

The fact that the US has taken an interest in the matter at the AfDB is something that Business A.M. learnt makes the situation bad as it is. “I’ve always thought the only thing worse than being ignored by the US is being noticed by the US,” the source said.

But the real battle that lies ahead will be in the boardroom, given the voting power equation. As someone said, “the fate of Akinwumi Adesina is not in the hand of African countries but foreign investors.”

But while the ordeals of the President Adesina evokes sympathy, it appears a lot of voices in his support, either from his home country Nigeria, or from other African countries, as shown in media reports over the weekend, have dwelled more on African sentiments than looking at more potent issues that could ultimately determine the direction of events after the moment when the frenzy of supports gets to saturation point.

“In corporate governance, noise is different from facts. Whether the defenders of the embattled AfDB President know it or not, the real battle is more in the boardroom and the ultimate determinants are numbers. In this case, the numbers will play up in a number of ways, one of which is the voting powers of countries,” explained a Lagos-based diplomat.

Nigeria as the largest shareholder has 9.3 per cent voting power. It is followed by the United States which has 6.6 per cent voting power. Others with significant voting powers are Japan (5.4%); Germany (4.2%); Canada (4%); France (3.7%); Italy (2.4%); U.K (1.7%); Sweden (1.5%); Switzerland (1.5%);

Apart from Egypt with 5.4%, South Africa with 4.9%, Algeria with 4.2%, the rest of 8 African nations from Cote d’Ivoire to Kenya have nominal status from 3%-1% voting power.

The vulnerability of most African regional member countries can thus be seen from the table. And when it comes to wielding powers, guess where the pendulum would swing and what factors would sway the vulnerable and the weak to the side of the strong.

And if the US, rightly or wrongly accused of orchestrating the crisis, decides to exit the AfDB, might there be an exodus of other non-regional members? In the unlikely event that this happens, what is the future of the bank? Will it remain afloat or go bankrupt? What will be history of the bank in ten years’ time, should this happen: that the bank ran into financial crisis while regional members try to save one helmsman?

There are insinuations that, post-COVID-19, China might step up its regional interests in Africa. If those interests extend to financial institutions, it will be one of the most egregious mistakes to give China any greater leverage in AfDB than it currently has, even if the motive is to spite the US. The experiences of countries in Europe recently should be a good guide as they are insisting that the stakes of China in their businesses must be kept to the barest minimum.

The question that comes to the fore is this: Is Africa now trying to have it both ways? So, if any of them raise any objection, would they be heard?

How did Africa get here after setting up a bank, then they gifted it to Asia, Middle East, Europe and America? And, what would other countries think of Africa’s reactions to the US?

One analyst said: “I really don’t know enough of the details. But, big picture, especially at this moment, financing in Africa in general and the ADB in particular needs this kind of on-going controversy over governance and transparency like a hole in the head. An internal inquiry, however exhaustive, was never going to have the credibility of an independent probe.”

The future image and credibility of the bank is very important. And external inquest would help in burnishing, not tarnishing, that image. If disallowed, a dark cloud of aspersion may hang precariously and dangerously on the bank for a long term as a bank where public confidence doesn’t matter so much as insiders’ judgment. It may affect the ratings of the bank henceforth and the prospects of getting more funds raised from countries outside Africa. The desperately needed development may therefore suffer needless setback.

So where is this heading to right now? “Well… three weeks is a long time in ADB politics. But it’s not good for Adesina, if only to have failed to prevent it reaching this point,” said one diplomatic source.

 

  • Business AM

News and Report

Alleged 76bn, $31.5m Fraud: EFCC Arraigns Ex AMCON MD, Ahmed Kuru, Four Others in Lagos

Published

on

By

 

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Monday, 20 January, 2025 arraigned a former Managing Director of Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria AMCON, Ahmed Kuru and four others for allegedly defrauding Arik Airline N76 billion and $31.5 million, respectively.

 

Other defendants are former Receiver Manager of Arik Airline Ltd, Kamilu Omokide, Chief Executive Officer of the airline, Captain Roy Ilegbodu, and Super Bravo Ltd and Union Bank PLC.

 

The defendants were arraigned before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos on a six-count charge bordering on theft, abuse of office and stealing by dishonestly taking the property of another.

 

The defendants, however, pleaded not guilty to all the six-count charges when they were read to them.

 

Count one reads: “That you, Union Bank Nigeria Plc, sometime in 2011 or thereabouts, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with the intention of causing and/or inducing unwarranted sale of Arik Air loans and bank guarantees with Union Bank, made false statements to the Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), regarding Arik Air Limited’s performing loans, following which you transferred a bogus figure of N71,000,000,000.00 (Seventy-One Billion Naira) to AMCON.”

 

Count two reads: “That you, Ahmed Lawal Kuru, Kamilu Alaba Omokide as Receiver Manager of Arik Air Limited, and Captain Roy Ilegbodu, Chief Executive Officer of Arik Air Limited in Receivership, sometime in 2022 or thereabout, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, fraudulently converted to the use of NG Eagle Limited the total sum of N4,900,000,000.00 (Four Billion Nine Hundred Million Naira only), property of Arik Air Limited”.

 

Count five reads: “That you, Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Ahmed Lawal Kuru and Capt. Roy Ilegbodu, on the 12th day of February, 2022 or thereabout, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, being public officers, directed to be done in abuse of the authority of your office and with intention of obtaining undue advantage for yourself and cronies an arbitrary act, to wit: intentionally authorizing the tear down and destruction of 5N-JEA with Serial No. 15058 valued at $31.5million (Thirty One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars), an arbitrary act, which act is prejudicial to the economic stability of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Arik Air Limited”.

 

The counsel to the first and third defendants, Prof Taiwo Osipitan, SAN, informed the court of a motion for bail application dated November 28, 2024 and November 29, 2024 for the two defendants.

 

Osipitan prayed the court that the defendants be granted bail on liberal terms.  According to him, the first defendant had no criminal records and that the EFCC granted him administration bail  which he didn’t jump.  “We pray the court grants bail to the two defendants on the same liberal terms given to them by EFCC,” he said.

 

EFCC Counsel, Wahab Shittu SAN, filed counter-affidavits dated December 2, 2024 against the first defendant and also another counter affidavits dated December 22, 2024 against the third defendant.  Shittu prayed the court to dismiss their bail applications.

 

According to him, the two defendants are facing serious offences of economic sabotage. However, he agreed with the second and third defence counsel that they are presumed innocent pending the determination of the court. Shittu , however, added that the temptation of the defendants leaving the country was very high. He thereafter prayed that accelerated hearing be granted and the defendants’ international passports be seized by the court.

 

“But if my lord decides to be magnanimous to grant them bail, we shall be praying for stringent conditions because we are particular about their attendance in court. “We urge that they should submit their international passports with the court in order to ensure that they come for trial,” he said.

 

The counsel to the second defendant, Olasupo Shasore, SAN in his motion for bail dated December 6, 2024 and filed on the same day, urged the court to also grant bail to his client on self recognition.

 

The prosecuting counsel in his counter affidavits dated January 17, 2025, opposed the bail application of the second defendant.

 

He said the application for bail was incompetent and should be struck out. Shittu cited relevance laws to buttress his argument. “My lord, the record of this court is to the effect that the second defendant, at one point, absconded in which your lordship had to issue a bench warrant. “The learned silk for the second defendant is not the defendant on trial and it is very unhealthy for a counsel to stand as a surety for a defendant.

 

“I urge my lord, in exercising his discretion, to take all this into consideration because our concern is the appearance of the second defendant in court so that he does not abscond.”

 

After listening to the arguments from all the parties, Justice Dada granted bail to the defendants in the sum of N20 million Naira each with two sureties in like sum.   The sureties must be gainfully employed and deposed to means of identification.

 

She also directed that the defendants must submit their international passports with the registrar of the court.

 

Justice Dada adjourned the matter till March 17, 18, and 19, 2025 for commencement of trial.

Continue Reading

News and Report

Absence Of Oba Otudeko, Bisi Onasanya, Others Stalls Arraignment Over N12.3Billion Fraud As Otudeko’s Lawyer Protests In Court

Published

on

By

The counsel for Oba Otudeko, Chairman of Honeywell Group, who is facing charges of a N12.3 billion fraud, appeared before a Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday to protest the charge.

Mr. Bode Olanipekun (SAN) informed the court that he was protesting because the charge had not been served on Otudeko or the two other individuals charged alongside him, the News Agency of Nigeria reports.

Olanipekun informed the court that, despite not being served with the charge, the defendants were shocked to learn about the planned arraignment through the media when the story broke last Thursday.

The 13-count charge was filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Oba Otudeko, former Managing Director of FirstBank Plc. Olabisi Onasanya, and former Honeywell board member Soji Akintayo.

Olanipekun is the counsel for the three defendants.

They were charged alongside the company, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

 

The EFCC alleges that the defendants obtained the sum under false pretenses.

 

According to the EFCC, the four committed the fraud in tranches of N5.2billion, N6.2billion, N6.150billion, N1.5billion and N500million, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos.

 

The 13-count charge, filed by EFCC counsel, Bilikisu Buhari, on January 16, 2025, further claimed that the defendants used forged documents to deceive the bank.

Specifically, count 1 accused the defendants of conspiring “to obtain the sum of N12.3Billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by V-TECH DYNAMIC LINKS LIMITED and Stallion Nigeria Limited, which representation you know to be false.”

 

In Count 2, it was alleged that the defendants, on or about 26th day of November, 2013 in Lagos, “obtained the sum of N5.2 billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by V TECH DYNAMIC LINKS LIMITED which representation you know to be false.”

 

The 3rd count alleged that the defendants, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos, obtained N6.2billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for and disbursed to Stallion Nigeria Limited, which representation you know to be false.”

 

In the 4th count, they were accused of conspiring to spend the N6.15billion, out of the monies.

According to the Commission, the offences contravened Section 8(a) of Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 and was punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.

Counts 5 reads: “That you, Chief Oba Otudeko, Stephen Olabisi Onasanya, Soji Akintayo and Anchorage Leisure Limited on or about 11th day of December, 2013 in Lagos, procured Honeywell Flour Mills Plc to retain the sum of N1.5 billion, which sum you reasonably ought to have known forms part of proceeds of your unlawful activities to wit: Obtaining by False Pretense and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18(c), 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.”

Meanwhile, Otudeko had reportedly fled Nigeria ahead of his scheduled arraignment on fraud charges.

 

According to TheCable Newspaper, Otudeko’s exit from the country is linked to the mounting legal pressures and financial disputes he is facing.

The newspaper reported that the businessman left the country via one of the land borders.

Continue Reading

News and Report

Loan controversy: Bisi Onasanya’s lawyer condemns media trial….Judge adjourns case to February 13

Published

on

By

In line with his resolve to defend himself and clear his name, Dr. Bisi Onasanya through his lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, at a session at the Federal High Court Lagos on Monday, January 20, 2025, demanded the service of proof of evidence and summons.

Onasanya, a chartered accountant and a former Group Managing Director of First Bank is defending himself against a controversial loan that allegedly occurred at First Bank 12 years ago. The retired banker is refuting the allegations alongside three others namely former Chairman of the bank, Chief Oba Otudeko, a former board member of Honeywell, Soji Akintayo, and a firm, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

At a hearing at the Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday, Fusika condemned the media trial his client had been subjected to, saying he was not formally invited by the EFCC or served a notice of the charge.

He expressed surprise at seeing news stories in major newspapers linking Dr Onasanya to a trial on loan controversy during his time as First Bank Group Managing Director without prior notification.

“My Lord, it is concerning that my client has been unduly exposed to media trial without being formally served. This is a procedural anomaly that undermines his right to a fair hearing and personal dignity,” Olumide-Fusika said.

The prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, denied any involvement by the EFCC in the media coverage of the case.

He stated that the commission had not issued a press statement and suggested that journalists may have obtained information through other means.

“My Lord, we disassociate ourselves from any media reports,” Oyedepo said.

The EFCC also applied for an ex parte motion to issue a bench warrant for the defenders’ arrest and sought permission to serve them through substituted means, alleging they had evaded service.

Olumide-Fusika opposed the motion, arguing that his client had always been available and had not evaded service. Demonstrating his determination to clear his name, the senior lawyer prayed to the court to have the EFCC serve the charge and the proof of evidence in the open court.

“This application is unwarranted and speculative. My client has neither avoided service nor absented himself from this matter. The claims of the prosecution are baseless. Since I am here and my client is ready to go ahead with this case, I ask to be served the charge and the proof of evidence here in the court,” Olumide-Fusika argued.

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, who presided over the case, dismissed the EFCC’s motion for substituted service on Onasanya since he has accepted to be served in the open court.

The judge consequently ordered that the EFCC serve Olumide-Fusika the charge and proof of evidence in open court.

The EFCC complied with the directive, and Olumide-Fusika who confirmed the receipt of the document extracted a confirmation from the prosecution counsel that the proof of evidence submitted is exhaustive and there wouldn’t be an addendum. The defence counsel said EFCC’s confirmation should be on record, insisting that his client was ready to defend himself and clear his name.

Justice Aneke adjourned the case to February 13, 2025.

It will be recalled that Onasanya, through his Communication Advisor, Mr Michael Osunnuyi, had earlier dismissed allegations, describing the claims as baseless and an attempt to tarnish Onasanya’s stellar reputation for professionalism, integrity and humaneness.

Continue Reading

Trending