Featured
PARIS FUND: Malami hammers Nigerian govs for breaching their own agreement, accusing AGF office
Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami has hit back at the Nigeria Governors Forum after their face-off with him over the Paris Fund deductions and consultancy fee.
Malami said the governors are not in a position to complain about deductions from the Paris Club refund because they collectively hired consultants who aided the refunds.
The Minister said this and more as he featured at the Ministerial Media Briefing organized by the Presidential Communications Team at the Presidential Villa, Abuja.
According to him, the governors acting as state chief executives created the debt liability whose payment they have also indemnified.
Addressing the controversy caused by the recent deductions made from the refund, the Minister affirmed that when the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) asked for refunds, one of the components was the settlement of the consultants who were engaged by the forum.
And when the refund was paid to the states, part payments were also made to the consultants.
However, he said, the governors later decided to stop payment while asking for an out-of-court settlement.
“The court granted them an opportunity to settle. They commit terms of settlement in writing, they signed the terms of the settlement, agreeing and conceding that such payments be made to the consultant,” he said.
They had to make requests to the President to make the payment, and the president passed it to the Office of the AGF for a legal opinion.
Malami noted that after being subjected to necessary checks, it was found that there was no element of fraud involved.
He explained that the indemnity of the governors was also sought and received.
“One thing I’m happy to state, which I want to reiterate having stated same earlier, is the fact that the Office of the Attorney General and the government of President Muhammadu Buhari has not indeed incurred any major judgment debt for the period of seven years it has been on.”
“The consultants instituted an action in court against the Governor’s forum and what happened in court? They submitted to consent judgment. They asked and urged the Court to allow them to settle out of court.
“The court granted them an opportunity to settle. They commit terms of settlement in writing, they signed the terms of the settlement, agreeing and conceding that such payments be made to the consultant.
“I suggested to the President on the face value of the judgment and the undertones associated with the consultancy services.
“It was my opinion, the same treatment we meted to P&ID, that let us subject this claim, the consent judgment to investigations by the agencies of the government. Mr. President approved, I directed the EFCC and DSS to look into these claims and report back to the office of the Attorney General. And these agencies reported and concluded that there are no problems associated with it. The government may continue to sanction the payment dependent. Now, that was the background.
“Even at that, we took further steps after receiving these reports from the EFCC among others, to demand indemnity from the governors. You, as a forum, you incurred this liability, as a forum you submitted to consent judgment.
” We have subjected these claims to investigation and we have a report, but even at that, we need independent indemnity from you, establishing that it is with your consent and understanding that these payments should be made, in writing. And I’m happy to report to you that the governors individually and collectively provided the desired indemnity to the Office of the Attorney General, conceding, agreeing and submitting, that the payment should be made.
“Yes, and that was the ground and the basis on which we eventually took a decision by advising the president that the payment should be made. And then along the line, there was a change of leadership in the governor’s forum. And all the noise-making that is now being generated arising from the governor’s forum is not only unjustified but indeed, a clear case of absence of defence.
“But one other point of interest you may wish to note is the fact that the new leadership of the governor’s forum instituted an action, even when the federal government was indeed acting on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
“They now embarked on a fresh legal suit, challenging the payment, challenging the previous agreement, challenging the indemnity and the court dismissed the application. Their case was dismissed by the Federal High Court.
“So that is the foundation and I’m happy to report one, that the judgment and contention was a judgment that was obtained long before the Attorney General, Abubakar Malami came into office, long before the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari came into office.
“It was a product of their own doing and they had it is submitted to judicial proceeding, judgment was entered against them. They have committed to the payment of the money, they have on their own indeed effected part payment. I closed my case and I will not like to answer any further questions on that,” Malami said.