Home News NICON Assets: Court Oders Committal Proceedings against AMCON MD, Directors

NICON Assets: Court Oders Committal Proceedings against AMCON MD, Directors

by Editor
387 views
By Chisaa Okoye 
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ordered the commencement of committal proceedings against the Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru and executive directors
of the corporation, Eberechukwu Uneze, and Aminu Ismail for flouting the court order partaing to the takeover of companies belonging to the businessman, Jimoh Ibrahim.
Justice Okon Abang issued the order on Friday (yesterday) after hearing an ex-parte motion moved by Victor Ogbonna, counsel to Ibrahim.
The Judge also ordered the plaintiffs to commence committal proceedings against the Director General, Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE), Mr.  Alex Okoh.

Justice Abang reasoned that it was legal to grant the committal proceeding against the defendants to come and show how they disobeyed the court order despite the undertaking by their counsel that “they will not take any step to undermine the res” (subject matter of the suit).”

The judge held that the service of forms 48 and 49 of the committal proceedings on the officials was because they (Kuru and the directors) are natural persons, prime movers, alter ego, directing minds, principal officers of AMCON.

They are persons that have contributed so much to the development of the country’s economy.

“I hope they will not by their action bring themselves to the direct confrontation with the law for nobody is above the law. I hope the allegation made against them is just in the realm of allegation”, the Judge said.

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

Cited as defendants are 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 Inspector General of Police.

Moving the motion before the court on Friday, Ibrahim’s counsel, Ogbonna submitted that the application was brought pursuant to Order 9, Rule 5 of the federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2019 and under the inherent powers of the court.

He said the motion prayed for an order of the court granting leave to the plaintiffs/applicants to commence committal proceeding by issuance of (form 48 and 49) against the 1st defendant and the following natural persons being principal officers of the 1st defendant/contemnor:  “Ahmed Lawal Kuru — Managing Director/CEO ; Eberechukwu Uneze — Executive Director; Aminu Ismail — Executive Director of Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) being principal officials and acting as agents of the first defendant alleged contemnor.”

He also prayed the court for an order granting leave to the plaintiffs/applicants to commence committal proceeding by issuance of (form 48 and 49) against the 2nd defendant and the following natural person who is also the 6th defendant in this case, viz: ALEXANDER AYOOLA OKOH – Director General, Bureau of Public Enterprises, being principal officer and acting as agent of the second defendant alleged contemnor.”

Ruling on the ex-parte application, the judge held that it was lawful to grant the committal proceeding for the defendants to come and show how they flouted the court order despite the undertaking by their counsel “not to take any step to undermine the res (subject matter)

Justice Abang had on February 22, 2021, set aside the order made by another Federal High Court judge, Nkeonye Maha, on January 4, 2021,  directing AMCON to takeover Ibrahim’s assets.

Consequently, counsel to the defendants had, on August 16, 2021, made an undertaking before Jutstice Ahmed Mohammed of FHC that they would not flout the court order in respect of the subject matter in litigation relating to the suit.
Ogbonna, however, alleged that contrary to the undertaking by their counsel “which is binding on the defendants, the defendants went ahead and took steps in defiance of the orders of this honourable court and the undertaking made by their counsel.”

 

Leave a Comment