$418m Paris Club Refund Fees: Ned Nwoko Accuses NGF of Intimidation, Blackmail

Chuks Okocha in Abuja

The controversy over the $418 million Paris Club consultancy fees has yet to abate as one of the consultants, Ned Nwoko, has fired back at the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF), accusing the forum of being opaque.  He also  said that no amount of intimidation or blackmail will stop him from collecting his due $68 million.

In a statement made available to THISDAY, Nwoko raised some  issues to prove that the NGF was owing him and explained why his consultancy firm, Linas International Ltd should be treated differently.

 He  challenged the NGF to show proof of one instance where Linas International Limited or Hon. Ned Munir Nwoko  engaged with it as a joint/group with any other entity either in the execution of the two separate consultancies or in demand for payments.

He explained that the NGF strained so hard to lump him with the others in order to foster the scheme to avoid responsibilities.

According to Nwoko, “The leadership of the forum is obviously rattled, astounded and stupefied that I raised the issue of the ambush of the Federal Ministry of Justice, intimidation, diversion and misappropriation of USD$100m”.

He said, “For emphasis, the Federal Government having fully refunded to local governments on the basis of the court judgment Linas International Limited and local governments jointly secured against it in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/130/2013, the President intervened on behalf of the local governments and offered to pay me approximately 55% ($350) of the total judgment sum of $637mUSD which he approved for the consultancy fees (for work done by Linas International Limited for local governments’ refunds which  had been fully disbursed by the FGN). 

“This sum was warehoused at the Central Bank of Nigeria in the account of the Federal Ministry of Justice As I explained before, the then NGF  chairman, Abdulaziz Yari Abubakar of Zamfara State, insisted that half of that money must be paid to NGF or he would generate a crisis and ensure that the payment is frustrated for work done over several years to the benefit of local governments. The Ministry firmly supported my resistance to the attempt to intimidate and blackmail me into submission”. 

He said,  “No  amount of blackmail and falsehood will distract me from following the path of truth, law and justice towards getting my legitimate entitlements as regards the Paris Club Refunds. I will never succumb to any intimidation, threats or trickery no matter the depth of such subterfuge. There is  no skeleton whatsoever in my cupboard and I have nothing to fret or fear, as regards the Paris Club transaction”.

According to Nwoko,  “The NGF is talking about constitutional issues after collecting $86.5mUSD, N19bn, and $100mUSD approved for someone else. We have not forgotten how the EFCC recovered some of the funds it funneled to some leaders of the 8th National Assembly to secure their cooperation in the fraudulent scheme.

 “No court of justice will allow a party approbate and reprobate on the same issue. NGF lacks the legal and moral basis to raise such issue after exploiting others and enjoying the benefits. Constitutional compliance are not empty or hollow phrases. It encompasses reason, morality and duty to obey laws. 

“The NGF response is not surprising. It affirms what we have been saying and experienced which is that they are striving to contrive legal issues and spurious litigations in a bid to avoid responsibilities which the high court condemned. They are hoping to take undue advantage of the slow pace of judicial process in Nigeria to frustrate by touting an appeal which is unconnected with the subject”, he stated.

He explained that  elementary principle of law is that an appeal does not serve as a stay of enforcement of a court judgment.

He said that  the Court of Appeal Act was very explicit on that, adding that, ” if Mr. Barkindo consulted their legal department he would have been appropriately guided and avoided exposing his ignorance. 

“He can however, make a quick reference to the case of ZENITH INT’L BANK LTD V. ALOBU (2017) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1554) 135 where the Court of Appeal stated that it is also elementary that a court judgment must be respected until set aside or suspended. Judgments of court against the NGF and Attorney Generals of the 36 state governments have not been suspended. 

“The Attorney General as the chief law officer of the federation is being vilified by the NGF for not standing the law on its head to foster their scheme. 

“The NGF seeks refuge under a case in which their lead counsel, a senior advocate, has stated in open court that they are not challenging the payment of Hon. Ned Munir Nwoko by Promissory Notes but the mechanism the Federal Government seeks to reimburse the face value of the Promissory Notes. 

“The learned senior lawyer duly understands that payment by Promissory Notes is an alternative to enforcement of a court judgment by cash payment. And once a execution of a judgment is completed you cannot order a stay of execution.”, he stated  

He challenged the governors forum, saying,   “Let NGF tell the world if there is an order of court staying the enforcement of the judgments on the basis of which the payments were made or whether an order for stay has been granted in the shadow-chasing and frivolous suit it lost at the high court. 

“What the NGF is doing is the typical bull-in-a-china-shop behavior. Destroy what you can’t have. The loan-to-value of a Promissory Note is impacted by the commercial and public trust it commands. Having been paid the  NGF is out to ensure that the beneficiaries gain minimal value from discounting the Promissory Notes.”, Nwoko stated

He explained that the  consultancy fees were legitimately earned and owed for services rendered and which the states and local governments respectively have fully been refunded.

Accordingly, Nwoko said, “For the avoidance of doubt, the fees owed my firm, pertaining  to the work handled for the state governments alone is approximately $68million dollars and not $418million dollars as is mischievously being portrayed by the leadership of NGF under Fayemi and his team.

“The NGF, in the statement wondered why I chose to “fully enforce the Judgment in FHC/ABJ/CS/130/2013“  insisting in a most insincere and ridiculous goof that “it does not matter if the contracts leading to the claims were entered into by any public officer, past or present”. This is absurd, selfish and unimaginable postulation, given the fact that the current NGF has benefited from the Paris Club Refunds with several tranches of the proceeds paid to the states, since the financial arrangement began under the Obasanjo administration. 

Giving further details, Nwoko said,  “The Ministry intervened and proposed the following: “That they can only release any portion of the money to the NGF on the condition that Governor Yari must provide an indemnity in favor of the federal government

“It beggars belief that, Governor Yari tore the draft indemnity the Ministry prepared and provided his own indemnity which incidentally Governor Fayemi, defiantly, now claims is not binding on NGF.

“That where the NGF insists on cornering any portion of the discounted $350mUSD approved by the President  the Ministry will return my letter in which I had signed earlier for the receipt of the discounted $350mUSD in full and final payment.

“That Governor Yari would rather have me claim the balance of the full consultancy fee later in order to  grab the cash at hand of $100mUSD out of the discounted $350mUSD approved by the President. 

“The Ministry returned the letter to me releasing me from the commitment of accepting the discounted $350mUS as full and final payment to enable me claim the balance outstanding on the consultancy fee for refunds to local governments in favour of Linas International Limited”.  

Nwoko furrher said that “the Ministry’s instruction to CBN  clearly stated that $100m be paid to NGF and that  It must be noted that this particular payment had to do with the local governments and yet NGF insisted it must have part of it. This $100m should be differentiated from the two earlier payments of $86mUSD and N19 billion legal/consultancy fees (for work done for states) diverted to NGF which became the subject matter of EFCC investigations and arrests of some staff of the NGF.” 

Again, Nwoko asked,  “why should NGF receive my fees for work done for states. On whose authority were the fees sent to NGF and for what purpose?

According to him, “The NGF brushed aside the several questions begging for answers. The NGF should address the issues of fraudulent payments made to them. 

He therefore asked, “Did NGF receive the $86mUSD and N19 billion or not? 

Did NGF sign Terms of Settlement with Hon. Ned Munir Nwoko?, Was there a Consent Judgement in my favour against them?  

“Has the NGF made two installments of payments on the basis of the Consent Judgment to Hon. Ned Munir Nwoko leading to the balance of $68mUSD?

“Did the NGF collect 5% payment as Administrative fees from Hon. Ned Munir Nwoko on each occasion it made the instalment of payment?

“In the two payments to Hon. Ned Munir Nwoko did the NGF pay me as a group along with these others it now seeks to lump together in the claim of $418mUSD?

“Did the states and local governments receive their full refunds?  Is there any Promissory Notes for Linas International Limited and in their list of consultants that make up the touted $418mUSD?

“Why is Linas International Limited not mentioned in their hurried response?

“The questions are many but let the NGF respond to these few for now. It is so obvious that they have no defence to the issues raised in my press conference. That is why they are trying to muddle things up by chasing shadows and leaving substance. 

“Rather than face the cogent revelations and speak directly to debunk my pointed unambiguous assertions, which are not just weighty but valid and verifiable, they resorted to trumped up and manufactured lies, sold cheaply in feeble and evasive propaganda”, Nwoko stated..

Nwoko described the opposition to paying him his duly earned consultancy fee as, “an unrestrained plot to remain dubious, opaque and diversionary in the face of the plain circumstances of the Paris Club Refund”