The candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the September 21 governorship election in Edo State, Dr Asue Ighodalo, has demanded the payment of N20 Billion in damages from Adams Oshiomhole, a chietain of the All progressives Congress (APC) and a sitting senator for malicious defamatory utterances made against him on Saturday, September 14, 2024, at a political campaign rally in Benin City.

Oshiomhole had recklessly accused Ighodalo of being the brain behind a ponzi scheme, ‘PLANWELL’, in which numerous Nigerians were defrauded of their hard earned funds in the past.

In a letter dated 16th September, 2024, and signed by Chief Ayo Asala, SAN, of Ayo Asala and Associates, titled “Re: Defamatory Statements Made In Respect Of Dr Asue Ighodalo”, the learned silk stated that:

“It is sad to note that despite your status as an elder and holder of a public office, you appear to have developed a pattern of spewing false statements in the public domain purely for the achievement of your political ends.

“This baseless, unfounded, false and malicious allegation has become another in a long line of such defamatory fabrications and statements made by you in respect of our client in the recent past.

“Our client is an accomplished Nigerian legal practitioner and a corporate leader whose impressive resume from birth up till the current day is entirely in the public domain and our client has absolutely no connection with and could never have been involved in any manner whatsoever with the purported ‘PLANWELL’ scheme with which you have seriously defamed our client’s reputation.

“It is clear that the fabrication of the unfounded and false story regarding the purported involvement of our client in the said ‘PLANWELL’ scheme or any other financial scheme whatsoever, is a figment of your imagination and a story fabricated purely for the purpose of denigrating the good character and reputation of our client for the achievement of the political purpose of advancing the sinking fortunes of your political party and candidate in the forthcoming Edo State Gubernatorial Elections.”

He went on to say that Ighodalo has been inundated with calls from concerned members of the public, associates, acquaintances and so many people as a result of Oshiomhole’s malicious accusations.

In consequence, the learned senior lawyer demanded “an immediate and unqualified retraction and apology for your false, defamatory and malicious statements which should be published in at least two national television networks and three nationally circulating newspapers.

” Pay to our client damages in the sum of N20 billion Naira for your false, defamatory and malicious statements referred to herein,” the letter read.

The letter further asserted that failure to comply with the above demands will lead to legal actions without further notice.

Ighodalo has consistently maintained that he knows nothing about the said ‘PLANWELL’, which his political opponents have been trying so viciously to tie around his neck.

Few weeks ago, the same Oshiomhole made some malicious and defamatory utterances against Ighodalo for which he has been slammed with a N20B libel suit. This is yet another in the case of Oshiomhole’s implacable determination to tarnish Ighodalo’s hard earned reputation.

The baby’s mother says ex-Minister Kabiru Turaki paid for antenatal, delivery and post natal services of the baby girl at Nizamiyye Hospital.

An Upper Area Court sitting in Kado, Abuja, has restrained the police from investigating a paternity dispute against former Minister of Special Duties and Inter-Governmental Affairs, Kabiru Turaki, pending the hearing and determination of the case.

The presiding judge, Shehu Ahmadu, in a ruling, ordered the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police and his officers not to accept any complaint from Musa Baffa, Uwani Arabi and their daughter, Hadiza Baffa, in relation to the ex-minister as the matter is already before the court.

The judge gave the order following an ex-parte motion moved by Mr Turaki’s counsel on Sept. 2 and a certified true copy of the order made available to newsmen on Friday in Abuja.

The judge said: “Respondents are hereby restrained, especially 4th to 10th respondents from accepting any complaint from the 1st to 3rd respondents (parents and daughter) especially the 2nd respondent (Hadiza) or carrying any investigation relating to the applicant as the matter is already before a competent court of law, the Upper Area Court Kado FCT, in CV/35/2024 until the determination of the motion on notice before this court.

“This order Is given under the hand and seal of the honourable judge.”

Mr Turaki had, in the motion number: M/26/2024, sued Musa Baffa (father), Hadiza Baffa (daughter), Uwani Arabi (mother) and Nigeria Police Force as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.

Others listed in the application include the I-G, DIG Sylvester Alabi (DIG Force CID), AIG Muhammad Dan Kwara (Force CID), CP Musbahu Ajani (CP Admin, Force CID), CSP Mohammed Gashua and SP Ibrahim Shugaba as 5th to 10th respondents.

In the substantive suit marked: CV/35/2024 filed before the court, Turaki sued Musa, Hadiza and Uwani as 1st to 3rd defendants.

The ex-minister denied being responsible for Hadiza’s pregnancy which resulted in a baby girl.

He alleged that Hadiza had a boyfriend who he said was responsible for the pregnancy.

The ex-minister alleged that sometimes in 2016, Uwani, who was a person known to him in Kano before her marriage to Musa, called him on phone and sought his advice on her plans to relocate her daughter, Hadiza, “who was then schooling, according to her, at University of Maiduguri, because of the activities of Boko Haram.”

He said he advised Uwani to secure admission for her daughter at Bayero University, Kano; Usman Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, or University of Ilorin.

Mr Turaki said after some weeks of the previous discussion, Uwani called and told him that she was coming to Abuja together with Hadiza and begged him to arrange an accommodation for them.

He said he obliged by securing an accommodation at Ideal Guest House, Garki which Is a furnished apartment that are let out for short or long stay.

He said Uwani secured admission for Hadiza at Baze University in Abuja and he supported her with N1 million out of the N3 million for registration fees.

He alleged that Uwani pleaded with him to serve as guardian for her daughter, Hadiza.

The ex-minister, who averred that he took responsibility of Hadiza’s upkeep, said he was surprised to discover that Hadiza connived with her mother to change her surname to Turaki without his knowledge and consent.

He alleged that when Hadiza’s criminal acts became so intense, he drove her away and directed his staff not to allow her close to his office anymore.

He alleged that after walking out on the daughter and the mother for a month or thereabout, Uwani called him on phone and requested to see him.

He said during the meeting, Uwani told him that her daughter was pregnant and she said he was responsible.

Mr Turaki averred that he outrightly denied the allegation describing it as a blackmail.

He alleged that Musa, Hadiza’s father, who he said had abandoned the daughter for 28 years, called him around May regarding the issue.

But in a statement of defence jointly filed by the parents and daughter, they denied Mr Turaki’s allegations.

Hadiza and Uwani averred that it was the ex-minister who reached out to the third defendant (Uwani) and offered to help her daughter “by enrolling her into Baze University in Abuja, bear the cost of her education and accommodation; and serve as her guardian.

According to them, the plaintiff (Turaki) committed to doing everything for the 2nd defendant because according to him, he considers her as his daughter.

They alleged that it was Mr Turaki who suggested the university contrary to his claim.

They said Hadiza’s registration fees when she gained admission in 2014 was N950, 000 and that the ex-minister gave her $2000 dollars for the fees.

Uwani said contrary to Turaki’s claim, the former minister offered to serve as Hadiza’s guardian.

Uwani, who said she never requested or prompted for such decision, said as at that time she did not suspect that Turaki had sinister motives towards her daughter.

Hadiza averred that she never suspected that Mr Turaki’s benevolence towards her was to take advantage of her.

Uwani said contrary to Mr Turaki’s claim that she begged him to give her daughter a car, the woman said she never had any of such discussion with the former minister.

According to her, it was the plaintiff who called her to pick up the Toyota Almera from his office at T.Y. Danjuma Street, Asokoro and she was surprise to see that the car particulars carried her name as “Hadiza Turaki.”

On her part, Hadiza alleged that it was Turaki who had changed her name to “Hadiza Turaki” by putting same on the vehicle papers he bought for her and persuaded her to use the same name on her Guarantee Trust Bank account number through which he sent monies to her severally through his account officer.

Hadiza alleged that she had challenges with her education, faced physical and emotional trauma when the ex-minister “exploited her under the guise of being her guardian.

She alleged that he frequently visited her in the apartments and several times lured her into having illicit sexual relationship with him.

She further averred that the plaintiff severally threatened her not to let her parents know that he was taking advantage of her thus, she was scared and traumatised, and the trauma affected her and her studies.

According to her, when the plaintiff realised that she was passing through psychological and physical trauma, he kept promising to marry her and began to exchange romantic phone and WhatsApp conversations with her.

Hadiza alleged that when she discovered that she was pregnant for Mr Turaki, she informed him and he took several steps, including phone calls made to her trying to compel and pushing her to abort the pregnancy.

She said she decided to keep the pregnancy against all odds when she was advised against terminating it and the risk involved.

She alleged that Mr Turaki became wild against her when she refused to listen to him.

Hadiza said she delivered the baby girl on April 3, 2023.

“And when the plaintiff later saw the baby, he acknowledged that she was his daughter as a result of the striking resemblance with him,” she alleged.

She further alleged that the ex-minister even paid monies for the antenatal, delivery and post natal services of the baby girl at Nizamiyye Hospital.

The matter was adjourned until Sept. 24 for continuation of hearing.

(NAN)

Guaranty Trust Holding Company (GTCO) is preparing to write off a significant loan extended to oil and gas company Aiteo Group, while also launching an aggressive recovery strategy.

The loan, which has been a source of concern for GTCO for several years, is set to be written off before the end of 2024, as disclosed by GTCO’s MD/CEO Segun Agbaje during the bank’s 6-month investor earnings call.

The Aiteo loan has been GTCO’s primary forbearance loan, and despite restructuring efforts, the outcome has not met the bank’s expectations.

Agbaje expressed the company’s readiness to move forward by writing off the loan and focusing on aggressive recovery measures.

This significant move, expected to be finalized by the end of 2024, will see GTCO remove the loan from its books without causing a substantial impact on its financial performance.

Forbearance and the Aiteo Loan…

The Aiteo loan, GTCO’s largest forbearance issue, has been problematic for years. According to Agbaje, the bank had restructured the loan in an effort to give Aiteo more time to meet its obligations.

However, these efforts failed to produce the desired results. With the forbearance period set to expire in 2024, GTCO has no intention of granting further leniency.

Agbaje stated, “We’ve put ourselves in a position to write off that loan this year, and it won’t affect our P&L.”

GTCO has been transparent about the challenges it has faced with the Aiteo loan, with Agbaje expressing frustration at the lack of progress.

“It hasn’t gone the way we like, and I’m a bit tired of making excuses for it,” he said during the call, outlining the bank’s plans to move forward aggressively in recovering the funds.

Capital Buffers and GTCO’s Loan Book

During the call, Agbaje explained that GTCO had already provisioned over 50% in capital buffers for its Stage 2 loans, including the Aiteo loan.

This provisioning allows the bank to absorb the losses associated with the non-performing loan without undermining its profit and loss (P&L) statement.

“We’ll probably write off the Aiteo loan this year and then go aggressively on a recovery drive because we don’t like how it’s been playing out,” Agbaje stated.

GTCO’s loan book currently stands at around N3 trillion, with the Aiteo loan representing a substantial portion of its non-performing loan portfolio.

Agbaje emphasized that the size of the loan book, not necessarily the quality of the loans, contributed to the Aiteo loan being a larger percentage of the bank’s portfolio.

He indicated that if the loan book were closer to N7 trillion, the impact of the Aiteo loan would have been less significant.

Nonetheless, the bank’s strong capital buffers ensure that it is well-positioned to absorb the impact of this write-off.

Aiteo’s Legal and Financial Struggles…

Aiteo’s financial woes are not new. In fact, the oil and gas company has been embroiled in a series of legal battles with its lenders, including GTCO.

These disputes date back to 2014, when Aiteo took out loans from Nigerian banks and the African Finance Corporation (AFC) to acquire Oil Mining Lease (OML) 29 from Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC).

The loans, amounting to about $2 billion, were largely financed by a syndicate of Nigerian banks, including GTCO, which collectively contributed 75% of the funding, while Shell provided the rest via a vendor financing arrangement.

The repayment of these loans has been fraught with delays and legal complications. In 2019, the lenders demanded repayment within seven days, but Aiteo refused, asserting that it was not liable to meet those demands.

Citing operational challenges and invoking Force Majeure, Aiteo argued that it had requested a restructuring of the loan facility, which the lenders did not accept. Aiteo then initiated legal proceedings in Nigeria, seeking a declaration of non-liability from the courts, but this only led to further complications.

In response to Aiteo’s legal maneuvers, the banks—including GTCO—took the matter to arbitration in the United Kingdom, seeking to enforce the terms of the original loan agreements.

In April 2022, a UK high court ruled in favor of the lenders, including GTCO, granting them an anti-suit injunction that restrained Aiteo from pursuing legal action in Nigeria.

Additional Reports By Nairametrics!