Connect with us

News and Report

Legal Tussles Threaten To Tear First Bank Apart… N300bn Capital Raise in Jeopardy

Published

on

If the long drawn legal tussles with some shareholders are not quickly resolved, First Bank may for the second straight year find the annual meeting of shareholders of First Holdings, the parent company of Nigeria’s oldest bank under threat.

Society Reporters had reported how a Lagos Federal High Court issued an order stopping FBN Holdings’ 12th AGM, originally slated initially for August 22, at the behest of shareholder Tohir Folorunsho Ismaila. Ismaila’s action is the latest in the growing list of shareholders blocking the bank’s crucial annual meeting.

The virtual meeting according to a notice by the bank on NGX has now been shifted to September 3. The bank was supposed to get shareholders approval for a N350 billion capital raise in the form of a public offering, rights issue or private placement.

Recall that the bank had in April disclosed strategies to raise some N300 billion via issuance of shares, public offering, private placement or rights issue in the Nigerian or international capital markets. Currently Nigerian banks are enmeshed in an aggressive scramble for cash to meet new capital base benchmark set by the Central Bank.

Some banks have nearly scaled the hurdles and close to goal post . Banks like GTCO and Fidelity have wrapped up their capital raising strategies, while big lenders from Zenith to Access are almost reaching the finish line.

The legal fireworks are threatening to put a spanner in the work of First Bank’s bid to get approval for its capital raise as the postponement of its AGM means another delay.

The postponement of the AGM is as a result of a recent High Court ruling stopping the meeting.

Recall that last year the bank’s annual general meeting was anchored on a quick sands following a similar court ruling by Justice I. N. Oweibo in the case brought against the bank by three shareholders – Olojede Adewole Solomon, Adebayo Oluwafemi Abayomi and Ogundiran Emmanuel Adejare, stopping the meeting from holding.

In the end last year virtual meeting did hold with First Bank saying it was not served any court order stopping it from holding its 11th Annual General Meeting.

At the heart of the legal fireworks was shareholders’ questioning of the legitimacy of a Board appointed by the CBN rather than shareholders.

The delayed AGM was actually now scheduled for September 3 was supposed to approve a fixed amount of N50 million each as directors’ fees for the financial year ending 31 December 2024 and N63.7 million as the fee for the board chairman.

Femi Otedola, secured approval as chairman at the AGM last year.

Series of court documents showed that First Bank’s protracted legal battles started when some of its disaffected shareholders cast a shadow on its AGMs.

Shareholders including Olusegun Samuel Onagoruwa, Kujenya Olayiwola Yusuf and Hakeem Lawal-Oluwa, had earlier began lawsuits calling in question the legitimacy of the AGMs, citing infractions of court orders that prohibited such meetings.

It would be recalled that a motley of cases are in various stages of court proceedings, with some adjourned pending appeals while others are awaiting judgement.

Olusegun Samuel Onagoruwa vs. FBN Holdings (FBHN) – In the simmering feud between Olusegun Samuel Onagoruwa, an accountant and shareholder, and FBN Holdings, the battle lines were drawn long before the ink could dry on the 10th Annual General Meeting (AGM) notice. Onagoruwa, the driving force behind his firm, Segun Onagoruwa & Co., has been fighting since 2022 to stop the AGM in its tracks. With a court order in his kits suspending all AGM-related actions,Onagoruwa and his legal team have been more than steadfast in resisting FBNH’s unwavering efforts to lift this judicial blockade.

Despite the court’s objection, FBNH convened the AGM in 2023, giving rise to contempt proceedings over its directors. The debacle twisted in 2024 when Leadway Assurance joined the fray, praying the court to break the deadlock.

But Onagoruwa’s camp countered the manoeuvre, as they filed objections that further knotted the entanglement of the proceedings.

The case initiated by Onagoruwa has found itself in a hazy labyrinth of crossroads, as it paused in anticipation of the appellate court’s verdict, while the Leadway case is set to resume on October 15, 2024.

Leadway Holdings Ltd vs. FBN Holdings Plc & Others – A Battle for Compliance
In another corner of the legal battlefield, Leadway Holdings Ltd took its grievances to the Federal High Court in Lagos, demanding that FBN Holdings Plc be compelled to hold its AGM. The catalyst for this dispute is a newly minted directive from the CBN which increases the minimum capital requirements for banks. Leadway argues that this AGM is not just a procedural formality but a necessity to align with the Central Bank’s mandate, effective from March 28, 2024.

The plot thickens as Hakeem Lawal-Oluwa, an unexpected defendant in the matter, raises a red flag. He contends that Leadway’s lawsuit is redundant, given the existence of similar cases already clogging the courts. The case, initiated on April 30, 2024, has seen a flurry of legal skirmishes. Lawal-Oluwa’s objections and counterclaims have been met with staunch rebuttals from Leadway, all culminating in a tense courtroom session on May 23, 2024.

Kujenya Olayiwola Yusuf vs. FBN Holdings Plc Kujenya Olayiwola Yusuf, a minority shareholder in FBN Holdings Plc, finds himself pitted against First bank in a battle over the legitimacy of last year’s AGM. The meeting, scheduled for August 15, 2023, promised to discuss crucial resolutions, including a significant increase in the company’s share capital. But as the date approached, Yusuf learned of a Federal High Court order that had thrown a wrench into the works, prohibiting FBN Holdings from holding the AGM.

Undeterred by the court’s directive, the company pressed ahead, passing the resolutions and updating its records with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC)—actions that Yusuf argues were not just illegal but a direct affront to his rights as a shareholder.

His lawsuit aims to nullify all decisions made during the AGM, including the registration of the new share capital and the revised Memorandum and Articles of Association. The case, with the CAC also in the dock for its role in registering the contested documents, remains unresolved, with the next court date set for October 3, 2024.

Yetunde Olowoyeye vs. Securities and Exchange Commission
A Minority Shareholder’s Stand In yet another twist, Yetunde Olowoyeye, a minority shareholder, has taken on the might of FBN Holdings Plc, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) in a bid to uphold the rule of law. Her case, filed under Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023, also revolves around the controversial AGM of August 15, 2023, which Olowoyeye claims was held in blatant defiance of a court order issued just days earlier on August 9.

The resolutions passed during this AGM, Olowoyeye argues, are null and void, having been forged in the fires of judicial contempt. Her lawsuit seeks to block the implementation of these resolutions, asserting that they violate shareholder rights under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020. FBN Holdings Plc, in its defense, questions the court’s jurisdiction and the plaintiff’s standing, branding the lawsuit an abuse of process given that similar issues are already under appeal.

Hakeem Lawal-Oluwa vs. Securities and Exchange Commission & 3 Others Hakeem Lawal-Oluwa is also challenging the legitimacy of last year’s AGM in court. He argues, like the others, that the AGM was convened in direct contravention of a court order from August 9, 2023, which had temporarily blocked the meeting.

The defendants in this case—the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), FBN Holdings Plc, and two other related entities—find themselves accused of flouting judicial authority. Lawal-Oluwa seeks court orders to halt any actions that might undermine his interests or sidestep the previous court ruling. But the case, like so many others in this legal labyrinth, has been put on ice, pending the outcome of related appeals.

Lawal-Oluwa in a separate suit against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Nigerian Exchange Group PLC, and the Attorney General of the Federation, argued that the illegal AGM not only violated proper procedures but also jeopardised his rights as a shareholder by increasing share capital and waiving shareholders’ pre-emptive rights.

FBN Holdings’ Appeal Against Olojede Adewole Solomon and Others – A Fight to Overturn an Injunction
In a parallel legal skirmish, FBN Holdings PLC is battling to overturn the initial injunction that has cast a long shadow over its Annual General Meeting (AGM) last year. The injunction, granted on August 9, 2023, at the behest of Olojede Adewole Solomon, Adebayo Oluwafemi Abayomi, and Ogundiran Emmanuel Adejare, has become the focal point of FBN Holdings’ legal strategy.

The company argues that the trial judge erred in granting the injunction while similar relief was still pending in the substantive suit. FBN Holdings contends that the court lacked the jurisdiction to issue the order, citing procedural deficiencies. Furthermore, the company asserts that an AGM, as a statutory requirement under Nigerian law, cannot be restrained by an injunction.

Undeterred, FBN Holdings has appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking not only to overturn the injunction but also to stay further proceedings in the case. The company argues that the injunction was born out of self-induced urgency rather than genuine necessity, and that the lower court’s decision was fundamentally flawed.

M.A. Banire & Associates vs. FBN Holdings PLC – A Call to Accountability
As the legal drama surrounding FBN Holdings reaches its crescendo, M.A. Banire & Associates, representing the petitioners Olojede Adewole Solomon and others, have issued a clarion call for accountability. The law firm has expressed grave concerns over FBN Holdings’ blatant disregard for the Federal High Court’s interim order of August 9, 2023, which prohibited the company from holding its AGM on August 15, 2023.

Despite the court’s clear directive, FBN Holdings proceeded with the meeting, approving a contentious increase in its share capital. The petitioners, through their solicitors, have urged the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) to retract the registration of the AGM’s resolutions, warning that failure to act in accordance with the law will prompt further legal action. The letter from M.A. Banire & Associates, signed by Muiz Banire, underscores the seriousness of the situation and the petitioners’ determination to see justice served, even if it means escalating the matter to higher judicial authorities.

Efforts made by us to obtain a reaction from Chinwe Bode Akinwade of First Bank Corporate Communicatio ns department over the developments were fruitless, as she was yet to respond to questions sent to her phone, and her number was unreachable for calls.

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

News and Report

Abuja-Lagos Super Highway Project faces threat as two consortiums engage in battle for FG’s nod

Published

on

By

AEC Unity Network Limited, the officially recognised concessionaire for the Abuja-Lagos Super Highway and High-Speed Train projects, has denied any association with an entity known as AEC-Geofocus Consortium (Geofocus).

AEC Unity Network clarified that Geofocus has no role in the planning, financing, construction, or operation of the 470-kilometer superhighway and high-speed rail projects, which are part of President Bola Tinubu’s Renewed Hope agenda to boost national infrastructure.

In a statement released on Sunday, the company emphasised that it is the sole concessionaire authorized by the Federal Government of Nigeria, having received approvals from the Federal Ministry of Works, the Federal Ministry of Finance, and the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC).

Barrister Ayodeji Ademola, legal consultant for AEC Unity Network, said in the statement that AEC-Geofocus has no basis whatsoever to make any claim in relation to the Super Highway project, having not been part of its conception from the onset.

In the statement, AEC Unity Network reaffirmed that it is the sole concessionaire authorised by the Federal Government of Nigeria to design, finance, construct, operate, and maintain the 470-kilometer superhighway and high-speed rail linking Abuja and Lagos.

According to the statement, the company’s approvals are from the Federal Ministry of Works, the Federal Ministry of Finance, and the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC).

The reaction by the AEC Unity Network may have been informed by media publications credited to one Engineer Mutiu Yinka Idris, who asserted that AEC-Geofocus was in charge of the project for the federal government.

Idris, who claimed to be Director of Operations for AEC-Geofocus, had in the publication described the company as a consortium of engineers, planners, and investors that had successfully attracted $16 billion from Middle Eastern investors, with additional interest from European financial institutions and the World Bank.

He had also claimed that the financial framework was designed to minimize government expenditure, safeguard public funds, and prevent cost overruns through an efficient risk-sharing mechanism.

Idris had assured stakeholders of a grand project flag-off before February 2025, reiterating AEC-Geofocus’ commitment to delivering world-class infrastructure.

“The $16 billion project will be led by AEC-Geofocus, a consortium of engineers, planners, and investors, and plans have been concluded to commence it by February this year, 2025,” Idris had asserted.

He said that the Lagos-Abuja corridor, spanning approximately 500 kilometers, will connect Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Kwara, Kogi, and Niger states before reaching Abuja, under a design, Build, Finance, Operate, and Maintain (DBFOM) model.

But in its sharp reaction, AEC Unity Network expressed surprise at the emergence of AEC-Geofocus out of the blue to make claims on a project it was never part of.

Part of the statement read: “We emphatically state that AEC Unity Network Limited has no relationship whatsoever with AEC-Geofocus Consortium or Geofocus. Any claims made by Geofocus regarding involvement in the projects are ‘spurious and false.’”

“We categorically state that AEC Unity Network Limited has no relationship whatsoever with Engineer Mutiu Yinka Idris or Geofocus.”

“These fraudulent claims are completely at variance with our proposed infrastructure plans and are intended to confuse and defraud unsuspecting stakeholders,” the statement added.

The statement by Engineer Mutiu Yinka Idris, who claimed involvement in the projects on behalf of Geofocus in several media outlets and amplified on social media, is baseless and an attempt to mislead the public.

The company warned investors and the public to disregard any media advertisements or reports from Geofocus, describing them as unauthorized and misleading.

AEC Unity Network stated that its project is still in the planning stages, with no concurrent developments on the same corridor by any other entity.

To prevent confusion and potential fraud, AEC Unity Network urged local and foreign investors to verify information only through its official channels and avoid engaging with Geofocus on matters relating to the Abuja-Lagos Super Highway and High-Speed Train projects.

This infrastructure initiative, which includes a direct expressway and rail connection between Abuja and Lagos, is expected to enhance transportation efficiency and foster economic growth.

AEC Unity Network reiterated its commitment to transparency and professionalism, urging the public to engage only through its official channels for accurate information about the projects.

Continue Reading

Trending