Court dismisses states’ suit to restrain FG from deducting $418m Paris Club refund

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Friday dismissed a suit by the Attorneys-General of the 36 states seeking to  restrain the Federal Government and others from effecting the planned deduction of $418 million from states’ funds to settle the Paris Club Fund debt.

The plaintiffs in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1313/202 sought to restrain the president and others from effecting the planned deduction of $418 million from states’ funds to settle the debt owed consultants engaged by states and LGs.

The controversial payment of $418 million to consultants over the Paris Club refund had become a contentious issue between the three tiers of government.

The presiding judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo dismissed the suit in a judgement delivered, saying that the attorneys-general have not shown enough evidence to accord them the right to institute the action.

He held that there was no express evidence to show that the governors of the 36 states consented to the filing of the suit.

According to the judge, the office of the Attorney-General (AG) of a state was created under Section 195 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended and the AG of a state is appointed by a governor, which makes the AG an appointee who is under the control of a governor.

He held that the contention of the plaintiffs that it was not a party to the judgment debt did not hold water because the Nigerian Governors’ Forum and the Association of Local Governments were parties in the suit.

The court further held that the plaintiffs had acknowledged the existence of judgment debt, insisting that the filing of the suit was a ploy to challenge the judgement debt.

Justice Ekwo noted that the action of the plaintiff amounted to an abuse of court process and subsequently dismissed the suit for lacking in merit.

The federal government maintained that its decision to deduct the fund to settle some consultants was based on a previous verdict of the court.

It argued that since the court had earlier decided on the matter, proceeding with the suit would amount to a high court sitting on appeal over its own judgment.

The court, had on November 5, restrained the federal government from deducting $418 million from states’ accounts to pay the disputed debt.

But delivering judgment, Ekwo held that the state attorneys-general lack the legal standing to institute the lawsuit with the consent of their respective governors.

“There was no express evidence to show that the state governors consented to the file of the suit,” he said.

“The office of the attorney-general of a state was created under Section 195 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

“The AG of a state is appointed by a governor, which makes the AG an appointee, who is under the control of a governor.

“From the court’s findings, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit, therefore there was no cause of action.

“The state attorneys-general cannot on their own bring this suit given the provisions of Section 211 of the 199 Constitution.

“This suit does not fall within the class of suits that can be initiated by the state attorneys-general without the consent of the governors.”

The judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that the contract was not entered by the states because the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) and the Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON) are not constitutionally recognised bodies.

Ekwo said both the NGF and ALGON are duly registered bodies that could sue or be sued.

The judge also held that the suit amounts to an abuse of court process.

“On the whole, I do not see any merit in the case and I accordingly dismiss it as lacking in merit,” the court held.