NICON: Court orders contempt proceedings against AMCON MD, BPE DG, others

 A Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday ordered an internment process against the CEO of Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Lawal Kuru, for the alleged acquisition of companies belonging to businessman Jimoh Ibrahim, against a court order. 

Judge Okon Abang, in a ruling on an ex parte motion, counsel for Mr Ibrahim et al., also ordered the plaintiffs to initiate internment proceedings against the Director-General of the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE), Alexander ok.

Judge Abang held that it was lawful to grant the internment procedure for the defendants to come and show how they flouted the court order despite a commitment to “take no steps to undermine the res (subject)”.

He expressed doubt that Kuru, Okoh and others, who he said had contributed to the country’s economic development, would allow such a direct confrontation with the law.

“They are people who have contributed a lot to the development of the country’s economy.

“I hope they don’t come into direct confrontation with the law because no one is above the law.

“I hope that the accusation made against them is only in the scope of the accusation.

“I hope that’s not true based on the commitment,” the judge said.

The companies are Nicon Investment Limited, Nicon Insurance Limited and Nigeria Reinsurance Corporation PLC, including Nicon Luxury Hotel.

While the companies are the first and third plaintiffs respectively, Mr Ibrahim is the fourth plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The Nigerian News Agency reports that the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/760/2021, was dated and filed on March 10.

AMCON, BPE, Lamis Shehu Dikko, Dr Henry Uko Ationu, John Abuh Oyidih, Alexander Ayoola Okoh, Ahmed Dahiru Modibbo, Mr Mela Audu Nunghe SAN, Mr Olugbenga Falekulo, Olusegun Ilori, Mrs Yvonne Isichei and the Inspector General of Police are the first 12 contemporary defendants respectively.

Ogbonna also sought court clearance to join Ahmed Lawal Kuru, MD/CEO of AMCON; Eberechukwu Uneze and Aminu Ismail, both CEOs of AMCON.

In filing the motion, Ogbonna said the application was filed pursuant to Order 9, Rule 5 of the federal Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, 2019 and under the inherent powers of the court.

Said the motion asked for an order from the court granting plaintiffs/applicants permission to start the jail proceeding (form 48 and 49) against the 1st Defendant and the following individuals who are principal officers of the 1st Defendant /content:

“(a) Ahmed Lawal Kuru, Managing Director/CEO (b) Eberechukwu Uneze, Chief Executive Officer (c) Aminu Ismail, Chief Executive Officer of Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) being principal officers and acting as agents of the first defendant, alleged challenger .”

It also requested an order granting the plaintiffs/applicants permission to initiate commitment proceedings (form 48 and 49) against the second defendant and the following natural person, who is also the sixth defendant in this case, namely: ALEXANDER AYOOLA OKOH – General Director, Bureau of Public Companies, being the main officer and acting as an agent of the second accused, alleged timer.”

The attorney said the request was made for the right reasons.

He said that AMCON is an artificial person whose affairs are coordinated by officers including Kuru, Uneze and Ismail.

“These people are the main drivers and alter egos who make the decision of the first defendant (AMCON). The alleged 1st defendants/timers act through the aforementioned persons,” she said.

He further argued that BPE (Second Defendant) is an artificial person whose affairs are coordinated officers that include the Sixth Defendant (Okoh), the “principal officer and acting agent of the Second Defendant, alleged challenger.”

He said: “The natural persons named above requested to be notified with Forms 48 of this Honorable Court, being principal officials of the first and second defendants respectively, they acted in contempt against the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court after actions to undermine the object Of demand. Costume:

“a. Retained the purported appointment of Defendants 3 through 11 to handle the matters of Plaintiffs 1 and 2.

“B. Wrote to the Corporate Affairs Commission to remove certain directors of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs in total contempt of commitment to the court orders.

“C. Appointed and unlawfully retained and registered LAWMATICS CONSULT LTD (1497862) as Company Secretary despite your commitment and court order.

“D. Property allegedly sold belonging to the third plaintiff.

“e. Maintain and manage an account in Nigerian banks in the name of the first and second applicants.

“F. Employ the services of other different security agents and prevent access to the company’s facilities to the main officers of plaintiffs 1 and 2.

“gram. The 12th defendant (IGP), despite the demand made to the office of the Inspector General of Police, has refused to restore police security at the premises to protect the 1st and 2nd applicants as requested.

“That the aforementioned court order was not issued against them in person, but that they are people who decide for the alleged detractors that they are not natural persons but legal persons.

“The current application is imperative to seek leave from the court to proceed against said principal officers of the first and second defendants in contempt.”

The lawyer said that “the natural persons to whom notification is requested in the application with Forms 48 and 49 are the respective main officials, main promoters and alter egos of said 1st and 2nd accused / contentors, respectively” .

Ogbonna, who said the request was necessary “for the preservation of the resolution pending the conclusion of the matter,” also said it would be in the interests of justice if the request were granted.

Judge Abang, in the ruling, held that while it was a legal impossibility to initiate commitment proceedings against AMCON and BPE to commit them to a correctional facility, natural persons acting on their behalf could be committed to prison.

The judge then granted the plaintiffs’ first sentence.

“This court has jurisdiction to allow plaintiffs, by virtue of their inherent powers, to allow plaintiffs to commit a commercial prosecution proceeding against natural persons,” he said.

Abang said that even though the defendants pledged on August 16, 2021, before Judge Ahmed Mohammed and reaffirmed before him on March 9 that they would uphold the status quo, they are alleged to have acted in disobedience to the pledge and court order.

Therefore, he ordered that the names of Kuru, Uneze and Ismail and their designations be endorsed on forms 48 and 49 and served on them to enable the court to hear them.

The judge, who struck down sentence two, held that the plaintiffs could initiate prosecution against Defendants 3-12 without court authorization as they were already listed as parties to the lawsuit.

No date was set for the start of the procedure.

reports that on February 22, 2021, Judge Abang annulled the order issued by Judge Nkeonye Maha on January 4, 2021, in lawsuit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/001/2021 against Jimoh Ibrahim and his companies, ordering AMCON to take control of Ibrahim’s assets.

Attorneys for Defendants 1 through 11 in the lawsuit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/760/2021, on August 16, 2021, pledged before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of FHC not to violate the court order regarding the matter. in question. lawsuit-related litigation.

However, Ogbonna argued that, contrary to the undertaking “which is binding on the defendants, the defendants went ahead and defied the orders of this honourable court and the undertaking given.”