The legal battle between Nigerian Export and Import Bank is otherwise known as Nexim Bank and its former Managing Director, Robert Orya, has spanned well over five years, yet has not gone out of media radar, and it may not be any time soon, given the refusal of Nexim bank to obey the court judgment of March 31, 2021.
A Makurdi High Court in Benue State had in March 31, 2021, awarded N50 million as damages against NEXIM Bank over the unlawful arrest and detention of Mr Orya, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Inspector General of Police (IGP).
The court, which also tongue-lashed the EFCC and the IGP “for turning themselves tools of persecution in the hands of the NEXIM Bank authorities”, also ordered them to apologize to Mr Orya.
Other respondents in the matter are, the State Security Service (SSS), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), and NEXIM Bank.
Mr Orya had filed the suit marked MHC/2393/2020, against the EFCC, the IGP, and NEXIM Bank, among others, accusing the defendants of breach of his fundamental human rights to freedom of movement and to own property.
In an affidavit deposed to in support of the fundamental human rights enforcement suit, Mr. Orya told the court that the NEXIM Bank (6th respondent) led by Abba Bello wrote series of petitions accusing of corruption.
He said one of the petitions was submitted to the EFCC and then Special Presidential Panel on Recovery of Public Property (SPIP), which was headed by Okon-Obono Obla.
The applicant further deposed that he was arrested and detained by the EFCC for four days before he was requested to continue to report on a daily basis and then weekly for the period covering 2016 to 2018 at the Capital Market and Insurance Fraud Section of the anti-graft agency in Abuja.
In October 2017, the NEXIM Bank management wrote to the SPIP and Mr Orya was apprehended and detained at the 2nd respondent’s (IGP) police station at the Federal Secretariat in Abuja for four days, where he was denied access to his lawyers.
Some of the respondents, EFCC, IGP, SSS, ICPC, CCB, and NEXIM Bank, had in their preliminary objections, challenged the court’s jurisdiction to entertain and determine the case.
They had argued that the suit ought to be instituted at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, being where the alleged cause of action arose.
However, the presiding judge, M. A. Ikpambese, in a ruling held that the Federal High Court and State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to grant redress for an infringement of fundamental rights, citing Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“Having established that the applicant is from Ushongo Local Government Area of Benue State and resides at Plot No. C38 Hudco Quarters, North Bank, Makurdi, Benue State, the High Court of a State in Benue State and the Federal High Court or State High Court in Abuja have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application brought under chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
“I make bold to hold that this matter comes within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Benue State by virtue of Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended),” the judge said.
In a certified true copy of the ruling dated March 31, 2021, which was seen by our reporter on Thursday, Mr Ikpambese further held, “the arrest and detention of the applicant by the 1st to 5th respondents is multiple and duplication of same set facts hence it is unlawful as there is no legal foundation to base the multiple arrests and detentions.
“The findings in the preceding paragraphs prove that the respondents particularly the 1st defendant (EFCC) and the 2nd respondent (IGP) breached the applicant’s right to freedom of movement and right to acquire and own property under Sections 41 and 43 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
The court noted that by the provisions of Section 35(1) (C) and 6 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended, a person who is unlawfully arrested and detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person.
Justice Ikpambese, then held, “the 1st and 2nd respondents (the EFCC and the IGP) being the organs used by the 6th respondent (NEXIM Bank), are to tender a public apology to the applicant and refuse to be used as witch hunts.
“In respect of the five hundred million nairas (N500, 000, 000. 00) general damages for breach of applicant’s fundamental rights, the 6th respondent (NEXIM Bank) shall bear the consequences of such conduct.
“The sum of fifty million nairas (N50, 000, 000. 00) is awarded in favour of the applicant (Mr. Orya) against the 6th respondent with a stern warning to desist from using the institutions established by the Federal Government of Nigeria to witch hunt the applicant in the guise of statutory powers even when exercised outside the ambit of the established legislation/statutes,” the court declared.
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) had in 2019 accused Mr. Orya of corruption and fraud. The apex bank had accused the past management of the export/import bank of plotting the removal from office of its deputy governor in charge of the Economic Policy Directorate, Joseph Nnanna.
Mr Nnanna is also the chairman of the Board of NEXIM, which commissioned a forensic audit into the lending business of the bank.
The CBN said the audit “exposed different levels of procedural abuses fraught with a high level of fraud in the disbursement of the loans by the former management (of the bank)”.
However, since the court judgment on March 31, 2021, NEXIM Bank is yet to carry out details of the court pronouncement vis-a-vis the payment of 50 million nairas to the plaintiff, neither has the court verdict been appealed at the appellate court.
In line with the dictate of the law, it is important to emphasize that disobedience to court orders remain a very serious matter because when an order of Court is breached or disobeyed, it affects the dignity of the Court in the administration of Justice, and courts do not take such conduct with levity.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of OMOIJAHE V. UMORU did not mince words when it held coram Mohammed, J.S.C. thus: “It is justice itself that is flouted by contempt of court, not the individual court or judge who is attempting to administer it.”
It is also appalling when state institutions that are being paid with tax payers’ money are in the forefront of desecrating the altar of justice by flouting the law without a blink of an eye.
Given that when a contempt of Court is committed whether in facie curiae or ex facie curiae, it is the duty of court to deal with it in order to secure and protect the authority of the Court, Nigerians who have followed this case from the incipient stage are hopeful that the court would do the needful so that not only would justice be seen to be done but that the case which has lasted unnecessarily would finally be given a closure.
