Connect with us

Interview

Italian Court Rules Against ENI In Defamation Case Over Malabu Oil Scandal, Awards Over €11,000 To Journalist Gatti, Media Outlet

Published

1 month ago

on

An Italian court has ruled against ENI in Italy, in a defamation suit against investigative journalist Mr Claudio Gatti and media company Società Editoriale Il Fatto SpA over Malabu oil scandal.

Justice Francesca Giacomini of the Court of Rome ruled on December 7, 2024 that the publication of truth can never be prosecuted as defamation and awarded cost against the company.

The Plaintiff in the civil matter of 2019 registered with number 67819 was ENI SpA, through its Attorneys Sara Biglieri of the Milan Bar Association, Luca De Benedetto of the Milan Bar Association and Roberto Fabio Lipari of the Rome Bar Association, had accused an investigative journalist, Mr Claudio Gatti and a media company of defamation in a book titled ‘ENIGATE’, which reported the Malabu scandal.

The Defendants are Mr. Claudio Gatti, a US-based Italian investigative journalist born in Rome on October 24, 1955 and Società Editoriale Il Fatto SpA.

They were defended by lawyers Caterina Malavenda of the Lodi court and Valentino Sirianni of the Rome court.

According to the court document obtained by SaharaReporters, ENI sought compensation for “damages for defamation”.

Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd was awarded an oil prospecting license in 1998 by Sani Abacha.

The original license of Malabu Oil and Gas was revoked in 2001 by President Olusegun Obasanjo. This move was seemingly unrelated to Dan Etete’s interests, despite his significant connections to the company. As the former Minister of Petroleum under Sani Abacha, Etete had awarded the lucrative OPL 245 oil block license to Malabu in 1998, a company in which he himself had a stake.

Abacha’s son, Mohammed is claiming ownership of Malabu Oil and Gas.

Following a lengthy legal battle after the revocation, an out-of-court settlement was reached in 2006, restoring the block to Malabu, which was implemented by then President Goodluck Jonathan in 2011.

Shell and ENI acquired full rights to OPL 245 for $1.3 billion in a government-brokered deal. However, foreign watchdogs alleged fraud in the 2011 settlement, leading to criminal and civil cases in Italy and the UK. Despite these efforts, all defendants, including the oil companies, were ultimately found “not guilty” in court.

However, the then-Muhammadu Buhari administration declined to upgrade the prospecting license (OPL) to a full oil mining lease (OML) for the Etan and Zabazaba fields being developed by ENI.

With a duly notified writ of summons, ENI SpA urged the court to ascertain and declare that Mr. Claudio Gatti and the publishing company Il Fatto SpA are guilty of defamation “through the press, to the detriment of ENI with reference to the book for which the parties are suing and for the reasons set out in the narrative”.

ENI also asked the court to ascertain and declare liabilities and condemn, also jointly and severally, Mr. Claudio Gatti and the publishing company Il Fatto SpA to compensate it for damages for losses suffered by it (Eni SpA).

It quantified that it should be paid in total €5,000,000.00 (five million Euros), “or the greater or lesser amount withholding tax, even on an equitable basis, in addition to interest and revaluation monetary amount due to the balance”.

It also urged the court to ascertain and declare Mr Clauio Gatti liable and condemn him to pay a further sum as pecuniary compensation.

ENI also sought the immediate withdrawal from the book titled ‘ENIGATE’ from circulation “and to inhibit the publication and distribution of further copies of the same book”.

The plaintiff company complained that the book ENIGATE’s narration of the story of the purchase of the exploration rights of Block 245 is ‘incorrect, incomplete and misleading,’ providing the reader with a “false representation of reality” because of the “prejudice that fuels the author of the book” and his “failure understanding of significant technical and historical aspects of the operation”.

The plaintiff claimed that Mr Gatti’s book suggests that ENI would have paid, availing itself of mediation of Mr. Emeka Obi and through the Malabu company, a “maxi-bribe” to Nigerian officials (“corrupt bigwigs of the Nigerian political class”) in order to obtain exploration rights relating to Block 245.

It said the book falsely states that a portion of the aforementioned bribe was “demoted” to “top management of ENI”.

It also claimed that the book suggests that the operation to purchase the OPL 245 rights was concluded with very serious prejudice to the Government of Nigeria and local population, who would not have received any benefit from the same.

The Plaintiff recalled some passages of the book and in particular pages 17, 70-71 and 249, which reads, “ENI and Shell have constructed a perfect scheme of what in English is called deniability, that is, they found a formula that would have allowed them to deny that the license was paid to Malabu, the company of the former Minister of Oil, Dan Etete.”

 

Finally, ENI contested that Mr Gatti’s book “through a series of falsehoods, omissions and insinuations, gives the Nigerian affair a very marked imprint of illegality” and in several passages represented the operation of purchase of OPL 245 as a “theft of well over a billion dollars to the coffers of the Nigerian state”, with the consequence that the Nigerian people would not have gained any real benefits.

ENI descried the claims as totally false.

But the Defendants argued that ENIGATE book is not intended to simply reconstruct the story of the purchase by ENI SpA of the rights to the OPL 245 block, but “derives from the examination of the judicial documents and other sources consulted by the author in relation, among other things”.

Both defendants also argued that there was no evidence of any damage immediately.

The court, however, found that the application lacked merit for the following reasons.

It said, “As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, although the action is aimed at contesting not the content of a newspaper article, but that of a book, which formally it can be defined as an artistic-literary work, however, referring to its content and, therefore, to the substantial data, the same way it can be defined as an investigative book and, therefore, should be assimilated to the works of a journalistic and essayistic nature, for its informative content, combined with that of reporting and awareness.

“The evaluation of the defamatory scope will therefore have to be measured according to the criteria of jurisprudential derivation, applicable to investigative journalism.”

In the light of these principles, the court considered that the book as a certain expression of the right of judicial investigation and that, therefore, all the conditions apply elements to exclude the defamatory nature of the book.

It also noted that from an examination of the case documents, it was clear that “there was a broad coincidence between the conclusions reached by the author of the book regarding the activities carried out by today’s actor (Plaintiff) in this context, and the charges that the Public Prosecutor’s Office The Republic of Milan will subsequently formulate against ENI and its summits for the Nigeria affair”.

“Finally, there is restraint in the language, inspired by a formal correctness of the exposition, the ethical duties of loyalty and good faith appear to be respected and, therefore, the critical reconstruction of the facts constitutes a legitimate expression of the right to free expression of thought, enshrined in art. 21 of the Constitution,” it said.

According to the court, the questions raised by the plaintiff must therefore be rejected.

“Any assessment relating to the existence of the damage is absorbed, which moreover, it does not appear to be sufficiently proven by the plaintiff,” it added.

“The defeat is followed by the condemnation of the plaintiff to pay the legal costs in favour of the defendants, liquidated as per the order, taking into account the value of the question.

“The Court in a single-judge composition, definitively ruling on the questions asked, thus provides: rejects the proposed questions; condemns the actor (Plaintiff) to pay the costs of the litigation in favour of the defendants, which settles a total of €11,203.00 for compensation, for each of the parties constituted, in addition to a flat-rate reimbursement of general expenses at 15%, VAT and CPA as by law.

U.S. Congresswomen’s Position On Malabu Scandal

In May 2024, two ranking U.S. congresswomen sent a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ), urging the DOJ to reopen an investigation into two oil companies, Shell and Eni, for their principal roles in a bribery scheme that violated America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

According to them, it involved the millions of dollars in bribes paid to corrupt Nigerian officials.

The Act prohibits citizens and entities from bribing foreign government officials to benefit their business interests.

 

The U.S. Committee on Financial Services (Democrats) disclosed that Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee and Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (D-OH), the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions called for the reopening of an investigation into foreign bribery case involving corporate bribes to Nigerian officials.

 

Experts allege that as a result of the millions of dollars in bribes paid to corrupt Nigerian officials, the country lost $6 billion in estimated future revenue—double the size of Nigeria’s annual health and education budget.

In the letter, Waters and Beatty highlight the ongoing harm that the bribery had posed to the Nigerian people and its economy, while the companies involved continue to profit.

 

Waters and Beatty raised the alarm on the need for the DOJ to step in immediately to further demonstrate its commitment to combatting corruption and corporate crime across the globe.

 

The lawmakers in a letter addressed to Honorable Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, U.S. DOJ, read, “We write to urge the Department of Justice (DOJ) to reopen a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigation into Shell and Eni regarding their 2011 purchase of the rights to Oil Prospecting License (OPL) 245, one of Nigeria’s most lucrative oilfields. Available evidence implicates both companies in a scheme that resulted in the payment of $1.1 billion in bribes to Nigerian government officials, including then-President Goodluck Jonathan. Shell and Eni, both registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), continue to profit from the deal in violation of the FCPA.

 

“Allegations of corruption surrounding OPL 245 began in 1998, when Dan Etete, a convicted money launderer and Nigeria’s former oil minister during the military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha, awarded the OPL 245 license to Malabu Oil & Gas, a company whose principal shareholders were revealed to be Etete himself and the son of General Abacha.

 

“The rights to OPL 245 continued to be marred with corruption, and in 2000, Malabu’s share registry was changed to reflect a 50% shareholding by Pecos Energy, a company secretly controlled by then-President Obasanjo and his Vice President. Malabu’s license was revoked in 2001 but restored in 2006, with evidence suggesting that bribes paid to then-Attorney General Bayo Ojo played a key role in that decision.

 

“Shell and Eni then purchased the license from Malabu in 2011 for $1.3 billion with knowledge that a portion of the proceeds would be used to bribe numerous Nigerian officials, including then-President Goodluck Jonathan. Hundreds of millions of dollars passed through various Nigerian shell companies linked to Aliyu Abubakar, a businessman known in his country as “Mr. Corruption.”

 

“Then-President Goodluck Jonathan was said to have pocketed some $200 million from the sale, and the former Attorney General involved in the 2006 reinstatement of Malabu’s license also purportedly received a sizeable payout. Other funds would later be traced to the purchase of real estate in the U.S., Dubai, Brazil, and Switzerland, as well as luxury vehicles and gems.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Interview

Exposed: Security agencies uncover, close up on officials behind smear campaign against CBN gov, Cardoso.

Published

6 hours ago

on

February 12, 2025

By

Olayemi Cardoso, Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), has come under attack and a smear campaign from detractors and vested interests opposed to the ongoing economic reforms spearheaded by his administration, investigations have revealed.

Findings indicate that these attacks are being orchestrated by disgruntled elements within and outside the apex bank, aiming to discredit the governor and reverse the progress made in stabilizing Nigeria’s economy.

Cardoso took over a deeply corrupt and dysfunctional system under the former administration of the apex bank. It would be recalled that findings by the Special Investigator of the Central Bank of Nigeria and Other Related Entities revealed that certain elements within the system had turned the CBN into their personal and family enterprise, allegedly siphoning off billions in stolen and embezzled funds.

The previous administration of the apex bank was said to have expended over ₦10 trillion in about six years on various interventions across different sectors of the economy, yet with little to no significant impact. The CBN had become a cesspool of corruption, necessitating urgent and radical reforms to restore its integrity and credibility.

Upon assuming office in September 2023, we gathered that Cardoso conducted a comprehensive review of the entire system and concluded that a complete cleanup was essential for his success. This prompted the CBN boss to implement bold and drastic internal reforms to enhance operational efficiency.

However, these reforms have not come without opposition.

Further investigations revealed that the recent attacks against the CBN Governor are part of a smear campaign orchestrated by certain disgruntled top officials and former officials of the CBN. Security sources confirmed that communication tracking has identified a serving director, two deputy directors, and two former directors as the masterminds behind the ongoing attacks. These individuals are allegedly working to tarnish the apex-bank governor’s reputation through blackmail and misinformation. We learned that security agencies are closely monitoring their activities, and they are expected to face legal consequences soon.

“Yes, we have received petitions regarding attempts to blackmail the governor of the CBN. A high-level investigation has commenced, and those found culpable shall face the full wrath of the law. We are collaborating with another sister agency on the matter,” a top DSS official, who is not authorized to comment on the matter, told our correspondent.

As part of the recent reforms, several redundant directors and senior officials accused of engaging in forex manipulations that weakened the naira over the years have been retired. The restructuring process included the voluntary retirement of many officials, who were well compensated for their years of service. This initiative was largely welcomed by many. Additionally, the bank transferred some staff from the Abuja headquarters to Lagos and other regional offices across the federation to optimize operations. However, these measures did not sit well with some individuals, as they effectively blocked corruption loopholes, leading to resistance from affected parties.

Notably, many of the officials who have exited the CBN were closely associated with the embattled former governor, Godwin Emefiele, who has been accused of running the apex-bank and the Nigerian economy aground. Emefiele is currently facing multiple charges, including fraud, money laundering, and abuse of office. Recall that the Department of State Services (DSS) had arrested several former deputy governors, directors, deputy directors and some other officials of the CBN linked to Emefiele over allegations of financial misconduct and irregular forex allocations.

Despite facing opposition, the policies and reforms initiated by the Cardoso-led CBN have begun to yield positive results. The reforms have restored confidence among both foreign and domestic investors, bolstering efforts to attain price stability.

The implementation of critical measures in the foreign exchange (forex) market has led to a strengthening of the naira against foreign currencies in both parallel and the Nigerian Autonomous Foreign Exchange Market (NAFEM). Additionally, foreign direct investments (FDIs) are on the rise, signaling increased investor confidence due to improved forex management and greater transparency in financial operations.

One of the key reforms under Cardoso’s leadership was the overhaul of the Bureau De Change (BDC) operations, which had become a conduit for illicit financial activities, including terrorism financing and money laundering. The BDC segment was being exploited by bank staff and even some CBN officials for arbitrage, distorting the forex market. As part of the clean-up, the CBN revoked 4,173 BDC licenses, effectively dismantling corrupt networks and restoring discipline in the sector.

The electronic FX matching platform and the Nigeria FX Code, introduced by Cardoso into the system, have also been pivotal in restoring transparency. As a result of these efforts, investor confidence has surged, foreign portfolio inflows have increased, and external reserves have risen to over $40 billion, the highest level in nearly three years.

The Cardoso-led CBN has also been able to unify the exchange rate system and eliminate multiple exchange rates, which had previously distorted market operations. In addition, the clearance of a $7 billion backlog in foreign exchange obligations addressed a critical bottleneck that had long hindered Nigeria’s economic growth.

In the banking sector, Cardoso has put up strategies to uplift the sector and increase stakeholders’ confidence. On March 26, 2024, the CBN announced a new minimum capital base for banks. Under the new policy, the minimum capital requirement for commercial banks with international authorization was raised to ₦500 billion, while banks with national authorization now require ₦200 billion, and those with regional authorization must have a minimum of ₦50 billion. With this new directive, the CBN aims to attract fresh capital inflows, strengthen banks, and enhance their capacity to drive economic growth. The policy is also expected to support President Bola Tinubu’s ambitious goal of achieving a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $1.0 trillion within the next seven years.

Furthermore, the CBN’s decision to cease deficit financing through its Ways and Means advances, a practice that had reached an unsustainable ₦22.7 trillion as of 2023, has marked a return to fiscal discipline and reinforced the Bank’s core mandate of ensuring price stability.

Under Cardoso’s leadership, Nigeria has positioned itself as a leader in digital payment innovation, surpassing many advanced economies and solidifying its status as a fintech hub in Africa. Homegrown unicorns have played a crucial role in expanding financial inclusion, further demonstrating the impact of the reforms.

The Witness.

Continue Reading

Interview

FCMB Vs Cool Financial Services: FCMB’s Response Claims Cool Financial’s Lawsuit Lacks Merit

Published

6 days ago

on

February 7, 2025

By

First City Monument Bank (FCMB) has responded to report on finance house Cool Financial Services’ lawsuit against it after a customer was able to withdraw a N150 million loan from a frozen bank account.

FCMB wrote a day after the report was published and three weeks after the initial request for comments was sent.

“FCMB believes the lawsuit filed by Cool Financial Services is without merit, as the bank had no contractual or fiduciary obligations to them,” the bank stated in an email on Thursday.

We had earlier reported that Cool Financial Services, a finance house based in Lagos State, lent Goewe and Sons Ltd., a supplier, a loan facility of N150 million in 2023 and the said loan was to be deposited in the borrower’s account domiciled at FCMB untouched.

At the expiration of the loan tenor, the lender was surprised to discover that the N150 million had been withdrawn from the account without its knowledge despite an earlier mandate stating that only the lender could authorise the withdrawal of that amount from the account.

Prior to the publication, FCMB had been requesting for one week after another week to investigate and respond to request for comments. We went to press on Wednesday, three weeks later.

A day after publication, however, FCMB responded with claims that the N150 million withdrawal was properly done and that it had no customer-banker relationship with the lender at the time of the loan transaction.

“To set the record straight, FCMB categorically states that it had no contractual relationship, express or implied, with Cool Financial Services concerning the N150 million. Claims of a fiduciary relationship or contractual obligations are without merit,” Adeola Adejokun, FCMB’s head of communications, wrote in an email on Thursday.

“Contrary to Cool Financial Services’ claims, they opened an account with FCMB on February 21, 2024. Therefore, no banker-customer relationship existed between FCMB and Cool Financial Services during their dispute with Goewe and Sons Ltd.”

The lender had earlier said, with documents in tow, that the borrower made it a ‘Category A’ signatory to the loan account to keep it informed of any activity on the account holding the N150 million. An email address of the lender’s representative requested to be added in addition to the new mandate instruction.

While admitting the fact stated above, FCMB said the dissipation of the loan sum from the account followed legal procedures.

“FCMB was not a party to any agreement that was said to have involved Cool Financial Services and Goewe and Sons Ltd. No arrangements existed that obligated FCMB to act on behalf of Cool Financial Services regarding the management of the disputed funds,” the bank’s Thursday email read.

“Goewe and Sons Ltd., an FCMB customer, received a standard loan facility secured by a lien on their deposit account, as detailed in the loan agreement dated July 24, 2023. While a representative from Cool Financial Services was listed as a co-signatory on one of Goewe and Sons Ltd.’s accounts, FCMB acted according to the legally provided account mandates.

“Subsequently, Goewe and Sons Ltd. changed the mandate following due process, and FCMB was under no obligation to seek authorisation from Cool Financial Services for this change.”

Similar to the borrower’s response to FIJ, the bank stated the loan had been repaid.

“Goewe and Sons Nigeria Limited and Cool Financial Services Limited had a financial dispute that involved law enforcement agencies. On January 19, 2024, Goewe paid Cool Financial Services Limited N150 million via bank drafts through its legal counsel,” FCMB wrote.

“FCMB conducted all transactions with Goewe and Sons Ltd. in good faith, adhering strictly to banking regulations and internal policies. The bank acted neither negligently nor breached any duty towards Cool Financial Services.

“FCMB believes the lawsuit filed by Cool Financial Services is without merit, as the bank had no contractual or fiduciary obligations to them. Goewe and Sons Ltd. has already repaid Cool Financial Services.”

The bank said that it had filed its defence to the lender’s statement of claim in court, adding that the case came up for mention on Wednesday and the court subsequently adjourned it until March 18.

Source: FIJ

Continue Reading

Interview

Cool Financial Sues FCMB for Allowing Borrower to Withdraw N150m From Frozen Account

Published

1 week ago

on

February 5, 2025

By

Cool Financial Services, a Lagos State-based finance house, has sued First City Monument Bank (FCMB) for allowing Goewe and Sons Ltd., one of its borrowers, to withdraw a N150 million loan sum from an account with an active freezing instruction.

Goewe and Sons Ltd. is a merchandise company owned by Ewere Godwin Orobosa. In July 2023, the company first approached the finance house for a N100 million loan at a 3.5% interest rate for a duration of 30 days.

Again, in September 2023, the company obtained an additional loan of N50 million at an interest rate of 1.5% for a month, bringing the entire loan to N150 million.

The borrower intended to pursue a contract and needed to have the said amount in its bank account, but the loan was not to be used to execute the potential contract.

Both Goewe and Sons Ltd. and Cool Financial Services then instructed FCMB to freeze the loan account so that the loan sum could remain untouched for the period of the transaction, according to a loan agreement dated September 18, 2023.

The borrower had earlier written to the bank to alter its account mandate through a board resolution dated September 15, 2023. The borrower appointed Ewere-Egharevba Orobosa, representing the borrower, and Roseline Anibueze, representing the lender, as ‘Category A’ signatories to the account.

The directive further specifically stated that the representative of the lender shall have the power to authorise any withdrawal below N150 million from the account while any withdrawal exceeding that amount shall be jointly authorised by the two signatories.

“Those measures were put in place to guarantee compliance with the terms and conditions of the loan facility,” Oluwafemi Adediran, head of the legal unit at the finance house, told FIJ on Wednesday.

After the loan duration expired, the lender wanted to withdraw it. So, on October 23, 2023, the finance house presented a transfer cheque at the Chevron branch of FCMB in Lagos confident that the money was intact. But the cheque was dishonoured and the bank revealed that the borrower had already withdrawn the loan.

“Upon our investigations and findings, we became aware albeit shocked that you disregarded the lien on the account and processed a loan of N150,000,000 (one hundred and fifty million naira) on the back of the restricted facility meant only as proof of funds. What is more, we are alarmed not only by this act but by the temerity and obviously premeditated criminal falsification of the signatures of the representatives of our client as signatory ‘A’ before the consummation of the unauthorised mindless transaction,” Justice John, a legal practitioner, wrote to a business manager at Sanusi Fafunwa Branch of FCMB and the FCMB managing director on behalf of the lender on September 26, 2023 and October 26 respectively.

On October 25, 2023, the lender visited the Sanusi Fafunwa Branch. There, Chukwuma Chukwuka and Isiaq Babatunde, both officials of the bank, appealed for a cure period of 72 hours to remedy the situation. An additional 48 hours was given to the bank to sort out the issue internally, according to a November 2023 court filing signed by Anibueze.

Those cure periods were not adhered to. On October 31, FCMB through Tosin Talabi and Akin Akintola, both legal counsel and head of litigation for the bank, said it had commenced an investigation into the issue.

“In accordance with our internal procedure, we have commenced investigations into the issues raised in your letter under reference and shall revert to you shortly with the bank’s position once the investigation (sic) is concluded,” the legal counsel wrote.

“At the time we went to the bank to verify how the money was withdrawn, we found out that the freezing instruction was still active on the account. We observed that our director’s signature was forged to make the withdrawal. The question the bank has not answered is, ‘How was it possible to withdraw money from an account with an active no-withdraw order?’”

More than a year after the letter referenced above, the bank was yet to reveal the findings of its investigation.

SEEKING REDRESS THROUGH COURT
In November 2023, the lender filed a suit marked FHC/2377/2023 before a Federal High Court in Lagos seeking to recover losses it had incurred as a result of what it considered “a criminal conspiracy”.

Sued in the lawsuit were FCMB as the first defendant, the borrower as the second defendant and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), FCMB’s regulator, as the third defendant.

“A declaration that the action of the 1st defendant amounts to breach of fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff,” the first leg of the relief read.

“An order directing the 1st defendant to immediately pay the plaintiff its capital in the sum of N150,000,000 (One Hundred and Fifty Million Naira Only) with (an) interest rate of 21% per annum or at the prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria’s rate from October 23, 2023, when the plaintiff’s transfer request was dishonoured by the 1st defendant despite the plaintiff’s account being funded; and without any satisfactory explanation by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff.

“General damages in the sum of N250,000,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million Naira Only) against the 1st defendant for the economic loss, embarrassment and financial exposures suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the devastating action of the 1st defendant, bearing in mind that the plaintiff is in the business of loans and SMS financing.

“An order of this honourable court directing the 1st defendant to pay interest on the judgment sums at the rate of 21% per annum or at the prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria’s rate, from the commencement of this suit till the date of judgment, and 14% per annum from the delivery of judgment till liquidation of the entire judgment sum to the plaintiff.

“An order of this honourable court directing the 3rd defendant to enforce compliance of the 1st defendant by drawing from the deposits of the 1st defendant in its care to settle all monetary sums and liabilities thereof by the 1st defendant herein in the event that the 1st defendant is unable to pay same.

“The cost of this action in the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira).”

The court has not fixed a hearing date for the case. At press time, FIJ learnt that FCMB had not filed any response to the lender’s filings.

FCMB had not responded to a request for comments at press time. On January 15, Rafiu Muhammed, a corporate affairs and media management officer at the bank, acknowledged FIJ’s email on the phone and promised that the bank would investigate and respond soon.

When asked to be specific when the bank would respond, Muhammed said, “I don’t want to give you an unrealistic time. But we will investigate and respond very soon.”

FIJ sent him a reminder on January 24 and Muhammed responded, “Give us till next week.”

FIJ called him again on Wednesday and Muhammed requested one more week. “We will try to expedite our investigation. Give us till next week,” he repeated.

THE BORROWER’S RESPONSE
In the court documents, the lender accused the borrower of falsifying Anibueze’s signature and conspiring with the bank to withdraw the money.

On January 15, FIJ contacted Godwin Ewere, the director of the borrower, for his comments. He denied falsifying any signature, stating that he had defrayed the loan and was no longer indebted to the lender.

“The loan obtained from Cool Financial Services has been fully paid and liquidated. We no longer owe Cool Financial Services. No signature was forged whatsoever,” Ewere said, adding that he also wanted to sue FCMB.

“I don’t want to say anything, because I want to sue FCMB.

“I am ready to meet them in court. I still see my name on (the) credit bureau that I am owing them [the lender]. They are saying over N20 million, which I don’t understand.”

Ewere showed FIJ a harmonised document containing a series of cheques he issued in the name of the lender.

When FIJ relayed Ewere’s response to the lender’s head of legal unit, he said it was a lie. He maintained that the borrower defaulted in repaying the loan and also withdrew the money illegally.

 

Source: FIJ

Continue Reading

Trending