•Shagaya sues Unity Bank, says accounts frozen without
court order
•Freeze: I have lost business goodwill, can’t pay N514m debts on
chartered aircraft, Shagaya tells court •Unity Bank: Our hands are
tied by the law
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has frozen
over N8, 627,458,773.36 billion in three accounts of Hajiya Muinat
Bola Shagaya, an associate and friend of a former First Lady, Mrs.
Patience Jonathan.
Shagaya’s relationship with about 10 firms/account names are
also being investigated by the anti-graft agency, The Nation learnt
yesterday.
But Shagaya, who did not hold any public appointment during the
administration of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, has dragged Unity
Bank to the High Court of Lagos State for allowing the EFCC to Post
No Debit (PND) on her accounts without a valid court order.
She says the action taken on her accounts violates Section34 (1)
of the EFCC Act, 2004.
Besides, the withdrawal ban placed on one of her accounts has
prevented her from defraying N514, 800,000 incurred as cumulative
costs in the course of an Aircraft Lease Agreement of a bombardier
Jet, according to documents which Shagaya filed and deposed to at
the Court alongside with her counsel, Napoleon
Emeaso-Nwachukwu.
Hearing of the matter is slated for September 28.
However, Unity Bank says its hands are tied by the law in
complying with the EFCC’s directives to freeze Shagaya’s
accounts.
The EFCC in a letter to the Unity Bank Managing Director in
respect of one of the frozen accounts said: “The commission is
investigating a case in which the above-mentioned account
featured.
“In view of the above, you are requested to kindly check the
table below and provide us with Certified True Copies (CTC) of the
following information, which should include but not limited to the
following: (i) The deposit slips/telex copies (front and back) that
conveyed the authority of the transactions; (ii) Any investment
made with the funds in any of your products which should include
fixed/term deposit and their liquidation and the interest incurred,
Banks Acceptance, Commercial Papers and any other relevant
information in relation to these.
The EFCC listed the transactions in the said account as
“N300m(Bola Shagaya RTGS); N300m (Additional N300FTD at 15% TRAN);
N500m (Time Deposit); N2,317,013,698.64 (BNG COLLAOS FOR
FTD-CUSTOMER ACCOL); N2.3billion (Opening a Time Deposit Account);
N292, 495, 029.82 (Withdrawal from Time Deposit); N292, 495, 029.82
(TAK Asset Mgt Limited); N300m (Term Loan booked for 356 days); and
N2,025,455,015.08 (BNG COLLAPS OF FTD Customer Account.”
In a separate letter Cr: 3000/EFCC/LS/STF/ STF3MP/ Vol.11/182
which Shagaya made available to the court, the EFCC asked Unity
Bank to Post No Debit(PND) on 10 accounts linked with her.
The account names are (i) First Deep Water Discovery Limited;
(ii) Bola Shagaya; (iii) FAPLiNs Nigeria Limited (iv) Lingo Nigeria
Limited; (v) Buri Barclays BDC; (vi) Links Global Synergy Ltd;
(vii) OKIOIL Nig. Ltd; (vii) JEMARVIZ Nig Ltd; (ix) PJ Oil and Gas
Ltd; and (x) AFDIN Ventures Ltd.
The anti-graft commission said: “The commission is investigating
a case in which the above mentioned accounts featured.
“You are requested to kindly place the account on Post No Debit
(PND) category pending the conclusion of the investigation.
“This request is made pursuant to Section 38(1) and (2) of the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004
and Section 21 of Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011.”
In the third letter, the EFCC said it was looking into two other
accounts including Voyage Oil and Gas and Bola Shagaya from 2008 to
date.
It said: “The commission is investigating a case in which the
above mentioned accounts featured. In view of the above, you are
requested to kindly provide us with Certified True Copies (CTC) of
the following information which should include but not limited to
the following: (i) The Mandate Card and statement(s) of all
domiciliary and Naira account(s) in the above mentioned accounts
from 2008 to date with letter of certification in accordance with
Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011; (ii) any investment made with
the funds in any of your products which should include fixed/term
deposit and their liquidation and the interest incurred, Bank
Acceptance, Commercial Papers and any other relevant information
related to these.
“You are further requested to kindly place the account on Post
No Debit (PND) category pending the conclusion of
investigation.”
But Shagaya accused Unity Bank of complicity on her travails
following the bank’s alleged failure to exercise the requisite due
diligence.
She said the freezing of her accounts did not comply with
Section 34(1) of the EFCC Act, 2004. She specifically referred to
the bank’s refusal to allow her to make transactions on Account
000326118 including payment of N514, 800,000 to Global Apex Air
Limited, through Heavywind Integrated Services, for the lease of a
bombardier Jet.
She said the Aircraft Lease Agreement between her and Global
Apex Air Limited has been terminated with her forfeiting
US$1million.
In an affidavit she deposed to, Shagaya said: “The official of
the Defendant (Unity Bank) whom my Personal Assistant relayed the
development to, informed him that on the 3rd of November, 2016, the
Defendant received a letter from the EFCC through their Lagos
office informing it that my account with it is under investigation
and requested that the account be put on “Post No Debit” pending
the outcome of the investigation hence the Defendant’s inability to
honour my payment instruction.
“Initially I laughed off the excuse as a ploy of the Defendant
to deter me from taking legal actions against it for dishonouring
my payment instructions especially that of the 31st of October 2016
which ultimately led to the termination of the Aircraft Lease with
Global Apex Air Ltd. And the loss of the sum of One Million United
States Dollars deposited with the Lessor by me.
“On the 27th of January, 2017 the Defendant responded to my
Solicitor’s letter. In its response, the defendant stated that: “it
observed that long before your client forwarded her cheques and
payment instruction to the Bank as indicated in your letter under
reference, the EFCC had formally informed the Bank that an
investigation relating to your client’s account was ongoing and
sought the cooperation on the Bank accordingly.” The Defendant’s
letter ended by stating that “Based on our understanding and the
fact that the Bank was already aware that the Law Enforcement
Agency had taken definite steps to comply with Section 34(1) of the
EFCC Act, 2004, behoves the Bank not to allow the dissipation or
removal funds in your client’s account without appropriate
clearance from the Law Enforcement Agency or a judicial order
directing the release of the funds to your client.”
“I will also contend at the hearing of this Suit that the
Defendant negligently and wrongfully failed to exercise the
requisite due diligence and by extension, the duty of care it owed
me as my banker prior to complying with the alleged freezing
instruction from the EFCC.
“The Defendant did not request and ensure it was obliged the
Freezing Order from a court of competent jurisdiction prior to
complying with the instruction to freeze the Claimant’s account
“The Defendant failed to honour the Claimant’s payment
instructions of the 31st of October 2016 as well as those of the
1st and 2nd November 2016 which preceded the alleged instruction
from the EFCC.
“The Defendant failed to promptly notify the Claimant of the
freezing other account. The freezing of the Claimant’s account did
not comply with Section 34(1) of the EFCC Act, 2004.
“Since the unlawful freezing of my account by the Defendant, I
have not been able to transact with that account due to my
inability to access same thereby causing business losses and
opportunities.
“By reason the Defendant’s action, I have suffered loss of
reputation and damages and my person brought to disrepute, public
opprobrium and odium.
“The actions of the Defendant which consist in unlawfully
freezing my account without an Order of a Court of competent
jurisdiction and failing to disclose same to me promptly was
unreasonable as well as defamatory of me before my business
associates who now see me as a criminal and an untrustworthy fellow
who is in the habit of issuing due cheques and payment instructions
that she knew would not be honoured.
She said she had lost a lot of business goodwill since her
accounts were frozen including
o The loss of $1,000,000 deposited with Global Apex Air Ltd. Due
to her in ability to pay accrued costs in line with Aircraft Lease
Agreement which was occasioned by the failure of the Defendant to
oblige the Claimant’s payment instruction to Heavywind Integrated
Services.
o Loss of business opportunities and goodwill occasioned by her
inability to operate her account domiciled with the Defendant due
to its freezing.
o Loss of reputation occasioned by the Defendant’s wrongful
dishonouring of her payment instructions to third parties.
“If not compelled by this Court, the Defendant will not on its
own volition unfreeze my account even when it is glaring the
Defendant had wrongfully breached the duty of care it owes
complying with an illegal instruction in freezing my account.”
But in a letter to Shagaya’s counsel, Unity Bank said it has a
legal and ethical responsibility to render assistance to law
enforcement agencies.
The bank explained its constraints in a letter by its Head,
Legal Services Department, Mr. Alaba Williams and Mr. Olusegun
Olukoya of the same department.
The bank said: “While the Bank respects the contractual nature
of the relationship with your client, it is without prejudice to
the Bank’s standing as a responsible law abiding Corporate
Citizen.
“In spite of the Bank’s contractual relationship with your
client, that relationship is not without a legal and ethical
responsibility to render assistance to law enforcement agencies
when required of the Bank.
“Considering the sensitive nature of the investigation touching
your client’s account as advised by the EFCC in October 2016, the
Bank had to exercise caution in relation to further transactions,
especially debits, in the account of your client under
investigation.
“The need for the Bank to exercise due caution in the matter of
the operation of your client’s account after receipt of
notification of the ongoing investigation by the EFCC was informed
by our understanding of various existing statutory provisions
relevant to the request of the EFCC received by the Bank.
“Based on our understanding and the fact that the Bank was
already aware that the Law Enforcement Agency had taken definite
steps to comply with section 34(1) the EFCC Act, 2004. It behoves
the Bank not to allow the dissipation or removal of the funds in
your client’s account under investigation, before the Court Order
seeking to preserve the funds was obtained.
“The contractual relationship between your client and the Bank
does not permit us to pre-empt the investigation by the Law
Enforcement Agency and the related Court Proceedings which outcome
could lead to forfeiture of the funds in the same account.
“The Bank could be considered an accessory after the fact if it
allowed the dissipation of the funds in your client’s account
without appropriate clearance from the Law Enforcement Agency or a
judicial order directing the release of the funds to your
client.
“Therefore contrary to the allegation in your letter, the Bank
had a proper justification for refusing the payment instructions
from your client for funds to be removed from her account in issue
when there was an ongoing investigation by the EFCC in respect of
the said funds. The Bank is therefore not in breach of any
contractual obligation to your client. The Bank is also not liable
to your client for the sum of N700,000,000.00 (Seven Hundred
Million Naira) or any other sum that matter as damages claimed by
you.
“Please, note that Unity Bank Plc. is committed to comply with
the extant laws and Regulations of all competent Authorities and
Jurisdictions.
“In addition to adopting best practices; ethical and legal
considerations always guide our commercial decisions protecting the
good name and the reputation of the bank remains the primary
consideration in all actions taken by the Bank. Accordingly, the
Bank protects its products and services from being involved in
allegation of unlawful activities. Hence we will cooperate fully
with all Regulators and Law enforcement Agencies.
“We are of the humble opinion that your client should kindly
resolve any outstanding issues with the Law Enforcement Agency and
facilitate the removal of the “Post No Debit” on her account with
the Bank.
“Litigation against the Bank will therefore not be necessary in
the circumstance.”
Culled Nation
•Shagaya sues Unity Bank, says accounts frozen without
court order
•Freeze: I have lost business goodwill, can’t pay N514m debts on
chartered aircraft, Shagaya tells court •Unity Bank: Our hands are
tied by the law
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has frozen
over N8, 627,458,773.36 billion in three accounts of Hajiya Muinat
Bola Shagaya, an associate and friend of a former First Lady, Mrs.
Patience Jonathan.
Shagaya’s relationship with about 10 firms/account names are
also being investigated by the anti-graft agency, The Nation learnt
yesterday.
But Shagaya, who did not hold any public appointment during the
administration of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, has dragged Unity
Bank to the High Court of Lagos State for allowing the EFCC to Post
No Debit (PND) on her accounts without a valid court order.
She says the action taken on her accounts violates Section34 (1)
of the EFCC Act, 2004.
Besides, the withdrawal ban placed on one of her accounts has
prevented her from defraying N514, 800,000 incurred as cumulative
costs in the course of an Aircraft Lease Agreement of a bombardier
Jet, according to documents which Shagaya filed and deposed to at
the Court alongside with her counsel, Napoleon
Emeaso-Nwachukwu.
Hearing of the matter is slated for September 28.
However, Unity Bank says its hands are tied by the law in
complying with the EFCC’s directives to freeze Shagaya’s
accounts.
The EFCC in a letter to the Unity Bank Managing Director in
respect of one of the frozen accounts said: “The commission is
investigating a case in which the above-mentioned account
featured.
“In view of the above, you are requested to kindly check the
table below and provide us with Certified True Copies (CTC) of the
following information, which should include but not limited to the
following: (i) The deposit slips/telex copies (front and back) that
conveyed the authority of the transactions; (ii) Any investment
made with the funds in any of your products which should include
fixed/term deposit and their liquidation and the interest incurred,
Banks Acceptance, Commercial Papers and any other relevant
information in relation to these.
The EFCC listed the transactions in the said account as
“N300m(Bola Shagaya RTGS); N300m (Additional N300FTD at 15% TRAN);
N500m (Time Deposit); N2,317,013,698.64 (BNG COLLAOS FOR
FTD-CUSTOMER ACCOL); N2.3billion (Opening a Time Deposit Account);
N292, 495, 029.82 (Withdrawal from Time Deposit); N292, 495, 029.82
(TAK Asset Mgt Limited); N300m (Term Loan booked for 356 days); and
N2,025,455,015.08 (BNG COLLAPS OF FTD Customer Account.”
In a separate letter Cr: 3000/EFCC/LS/STF/ STF3MP/ Vol.11/182
which Shagaya made available to the court, the EFCC asked Unity
Bank to Post No Debit(PND) on 10 accounts linked with her.
The account names are (i) First Deep Water Discovery Limited;
(ii) Bola Shagaya; (iii) FAPLiNs Nigeria Limited (iv) Lingo Nigeria
Limited; (v) Buri Barclays BDC; (vi) Links Global Synergy Ltd;
(vii) OKIOIL Nig. Ltd; (vii) JEMARVIZ Nig Ltd; (ix) PJ Oil and Gas
Ltd; and (x) AFDIN Ventures Ltd.
The anti-graft commission said: “The commission is investigating
a case in which the above mentioned accounts featured.
“You are requested to kindly place the account on Post No Debit
(PND) category pending the conclusion of the investigation.
“This request is made pursuant to Section 38(1) and (2) of the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004
and Section 21 of Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011.”
In the third letter, the EFCC said it was looking into two other
accounts including Voyage Oil and Gas and Bola Shagaya from 2008 to
date.
It said: “The commission is investigating a case in which the
above mentioned accounts featured. In view of the above, you are
requested to kindly provide us with Certified True Copies (CTC) of
the following information which should include but not limited to
the following: (i) The Mandate Card and statement(s) of all
domiciliary and Naira account(s) in the above mentioned accounts
from 2008 to date with letter of certification in accordance with
Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011; (ii) any investment made with
the funds in any of your products which should include fixed/term
deposit and their liquidation and the interest incurred, Bank
Acceptance, Commercial Papers and any other relevant information
related to these.
“You are further requested to kindly place the account on Post
No Debit (PND) category pending the conclusion of
investigation.”
But Shagaya accused Unity Bank of complicity on her travails
following the bank’s alleged failure to exercise the requisite due
diligence.
She said the freezing of her accounts did not comply with
Section 34(1) of the EFCC Act, 2004. She specifically referred to
the bank’s refusal to allow her to make transactions on Account
000326118 including payment of N514, 800,000 to Global Apex Air
Limited, through Heavywind Integrated Services, for the lease of a
bombardier Jet.
She said the Aircraft Lease Agreement between her and Global
Apex Air Limited has been terminated with her forfeiting
US$1million.
In an affidavit she deposed to, Shagaya said: “The official of
the Defendant (Unity Bank) whom my Personal Assistant relayed the
development to, informed him that on the 3rd of November, 2016, the
Defendant received a letter from the EFCC through their Lagos
office informing it that my account with it is under investigation
and requested that the account be put on “Post No Debit” pending
the outcome of the investigation hence the Defendant’s inability to
honour my payment instruction.
“Initially I laughed off the excuse as a ploy of the Defendant
to deter me from taking legal actions against it for dishonouring
my payment instructions especially that of the 31st of October 2016
which ultimately led to the termination of the Aircraft Lease with
Global Apex Air Ltd. And the loss of the sum of One Million United
States Dollars deposited with the Lessor by me.
“On the 27th of January, 2017 the Defendant responded to my
Solicitor’s letter. In its response, the defendant stated that: “it
observed that long before your client forwarded her cheques and
payment instruction to the Bank as indicated in your letter under
reference, the EFCC had formally informed the Bank that an
investigation relating to your client’s account was ongoing and
sought the cooperation on the Bank accordingly.” The Defendant’s
letter ended by stating that “Based on our understanding and the
fact that the Bank was already aware that the Law Enforcement
Agency had taken definite steps to comply with Section 34(1) of the
EFCC Act, 2004, behoves the Bank not to allow the dissipation or
removal funds in your client’s account without appropriate
clearance from the Law Enforcement Agency or a judicial order
directing the release of the funds to your client.”
“I will also contend at the hearing of this Suit that the
Defendant negligently and wrongfully failed to exercise the
requisite due diligence and by extension, the duty of care it owed
me as my banker prior to complying with the alleged freezing
instruction from the EFCC.
“The Defendant did not request and ensure it was obliged the
Freezing Order from a court of competent jurisdiction prior to
complying with the instruction to freeze the Claimant’s account
“The Defendant failed to honour the Claimant’s payment
instructions of the 31st of October 2016 as well as those of the
1st and 2nd November 2016 which preceded the alleged instruction
from the EFCC.
“The Defendant failed to promptly notify the Claimant of the
freezing other account. The freezing of the Claimant’s account did
not comply with Section 34(1) of the EFCC Act, 2004.
“Since the unlawful freezing of my account by the Defendant, I
have not been able to transact with that account due to my
inability to access same thereby causing business losses and
opportunities.
“By reason the Defendant’s action, I have suffered loss of
reputation and damages and my person brought to disrepute, public
opprobrium and odium.
“The actions of the Defendant which consist in unlawfully
freezing my account without an Order of a Court of competent
jurisdiction and failing to disclose same to me promptly was
unreasonable as well as defamatory of me before my business
associates who now see me as a criminal and an untrustworthy fellow
who is in the habit of issuing due cheques and payment instructions
that she knew would not be honoured.
She said she had lost a lot of business goodwill since her
accounts were frozen including
o The loss of $1,000,000 deposited with Global Apex Air Ltd. Due
to her in ability to pay accrued costs in line with Aircraft Lease
Agreement which was occasioned by the failure of the Defendant to
oblige the Claimant’s payment instruction to Heavywind Integrated
Services.
o Loss of business opportunities and goodwill occasioned by her
inability to operate her account domiciled with the Defendant due
to its freezing.
o Loss of reputation occasioned by the Defendant’s wrongful
dishonouring of her payment instructions to third parties.
“If not compelled by this Court, the Defendant will not on its
own volition unfreeze my account even when it is glaring the
Defendant had wrongfully breached the duty of care it owes
complying with an illegal instruction in freezing my account.”
But in a letter to Shagaya’s counsel, Unity Bank said it has a
legal and ethical responsibility to render assistance to law
enforcement agencies.
The bank explained its constraints in a letter by its Head,
Legal Services Department, Mr. Alaba Williams and Mr. Olusegun
Olukoya of the same department.
The bank said: “While the Bank respects the contractual nature
of the relationship with your client, it is without prejudice to
the Bank’s standing as a responsible law abiding Corporate
Citizen.
“In spite of the Bank’s contractual relationship with your
client, that relationship is not without a legal and ethical
responsibility to render assistance to law enforcement agencies
when required of the Bank.
“Considering the sensitive nature of the investigation touching
your client’s account as advised by the EFCC in October 2016, the
Bank had to exercise caution in relation to further transactions,
especially debits, in the account of your client under
investigation.
“The need for the Bank to exercise due caution in the matter of
the operation of your client’s account after receipt of
notification of the ongoing investigation by the EFCC was informed
by our understanding of various existing statutory provisions
relevant to the request of the EFCC received by the Bank.
“Based on our understanding and the fact that the Bank was
already aware that the Law Enforcement Agency had taken definite
steps to comply with section 34(1) the EFCC Act, 2004. It behoves
the Bank not to allow the dissipation or removal of the funds in
your client’s account under investigation, before the Court Order
seeking to preserve the funds was obtained.
“The contractual relationship between your client and the Bank
does not permit us to pre-empt the investigation by the Law
Enforcement Agency and the related Court Proceedings which outcome
could lead to forfeiture of the funds in the same account.
“The Bank could be considered an accessory after the fact if it
allowed the dissipation of the funds in your client’s account
without appropriate clearance from the Law Enforcement Agency or a
judicial order directing the release of the funds to your
client.
“Therefore contrary to the allegation in your letter, the Bank
had a proper justification for refusing the payment instructions
from your client for funds to be removed from her account in issue
when there was an ongoing investigation by the EFCC in respect of
the said funds. The Bank is therefore not in breach of any
contractual obligation to your client. The Bank is also not liable
to your client for the sum of N700,000,000.00 (Seven Hundred
Million Naira) or any other sum that matter as damages claimed by
you.
“Please, note that Unity Bank Plc. is committed to comply with
the extant laws and Regulations of all competent Authorities and
Jurisdictions.
“In addition to adopting best practices; ethical and legal
considerations always guide our commercial decisions protecting the
good name and the reputation of the bank remains the primary
consideration in all actions taken by the Bank. Accordingly, the
Bank protects its products and services from being involved in
allegation of unlawful activities. Hence we will cooperate fully
with all Regulators and Law enforcement Agencies.
“We are of the humble opinion that your client should kindly
resolve any outstanding issues with the Law Enforcement Agency and
facilitate the removal of the “Post No Debit” on her account with
the Bank.
“Litigation against the Bank will therefore not be necessary in
the circumstance.”
Culled Nation
Read more https://www.nairalaw.com/efcc-freezes-n8-6b-in-ex-first-ladys-friends-accounts/