Intercontinental Bank shareholders drag Sanusi to court •Court orders suspended CBN gov to enter appearance

Aggrieved shareholders of the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc have dragged Mallam   before an Abuja Division of the Federal High Court.
Plaintiffs/applicants in the suit are Abdullahi Sani, Adaeze Onwuegbusi and Chijioke Ezeikpe, all shareholders of the bank, which has been taken over by Access Bank Plc.
The defendants are Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi (1st), Central Bank of Nigeria, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Specifically, the plaintiffs, want the court “to compel, direct and mandate the 3rd defendant (SEC) as the official and apex regulator of the Nigerian Capital Market acting under her powers pursuant to Section 13 of the Investments and Securities Act 2007, to conduct a detailed public investigation into the circumstances relating to and connected with the sale/acquisition/take over/ transfer of the shares, assets and securities of Intercontinental Bank Plc to Access Bank Plc, in order to protect the plaintiffs as shareholders and investors of Intercontinental Bank Plc and the maintenance of a fair and orderly securities market and to protect the integrity of the securities market against all forms of abuse as occasioned herein by the 1st defendant and his friends/associates/cronies, and to accordingly order appropriate sanctions against parties involved in this fraud.
The plaintiffs had earlier brought a motion ex parte yesterday, pursuant to Order 6 Rules 5b & 5c of the Federal High Court.
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Chief Chris Uche SAN said the application dated March 17, and filed same day sought order of the court granting leave to serve the originating summon and other processes in the suit on Sanusi by substituted means, by delivering of the documents to any officer or adult person at his last known place of business in the office of Governor of the CBN or by pasting same on the notice board of the CBN.
After perusing through the application, the 12-paragraph affidavit and written address as well as annextures accompanying it, Justice Ahmed Mohammed therefore granted the motion ex parte.
The court also ordered that hearing notices should be served on all the defendants before adjourning the matter to May 14, for mention.
In the originating summon, the plaintiffs want the court to determine, “Whether the 1st defendant, acting as the Governor of the 2nd defendant, did not act fraudulently, in breach of his public office, against the public interest and contrary to the provisions of sections 12, 32, 35 and 39 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, Cap B4 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 in deliberately strangulating the banking operations and falsifying the actual financial state of affairs/solvency of intercontinental bank Plc as a ground for revoking the operating licence of and taking over the management of the said Intercontinental Bank Plc, of which the plaintiffs are shareholders, only to undervalue the said Bank to the detriment of the plaintiffs as shareholders and investors and sell to Access Bank Plc where Mr. Aig-Aigboje and Mr. Herbert Wigwe, the Managing Director and Deputy Managing Director respectively of the said Access Bank Plc, acting indebted to Intercontinental Bank Plc, to the tune of N16.2bn, to the knowledge of the 1st defendant.
“Whether the 1st defendant, acting as the Governor of the 2nd defendant did not act fraudulently, in breach of his public office, against the public interest and contrary to the provision of sections 12, 32, 35 and 39 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, Cap B4 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, in taking over Intercontinental Bank Plc, of which the plaintiffs are shareholders, and selling same to Access Bank Plc, notwithstanding that the facilitator of the said sale/buy-over transaction, Senator Bukola Saraki, was also indebted to Intercontinental Bank Plc, to the tune of N8.9bn, through his companies, Limkers, Dicetrade, Skyview Properties and Joy Petroleum, to the knowledge of the 1st defendant.
They further urged the court to determine whether Sanusi did not act fraudulently “in waiving/writing off the sum of 16.2bn owed by the Mr. Aig-Aigboje Imokhuede and Mr. Herbert Wigwe, the MD and Deputy MD of the Access Bank and the sum of N8.9bn owed by Senator Bukola Saraki and other sums so owed, all totaling over N40bn in a bid to enable the said Access Bank Plc to fraudulently purchase Intercontinental Bank Plc at a ridiculous sum of N50bn only, even when the quarterly profit of the said Bank was more than N50bn and which Bank at the material time was worth more than N1trillion, to the detriment of the Plaintiffs as shareholders and investors.”
They further alleged that Sanusi violated section 35(2)(d) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, Cap B4 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, in appointing Mahmoud Lai Alabi an agent/staff of Senator Saraki as MD of Intercontinental Bank Plc, to superintend the eventual sale/transfer of Intercontinental Bank Plc, of which the plaintiffs are shereholders, to the trio of Mr Imokhuede, Mr. Wigwe, the MD and Deputy MD respectively of Access Bank and Senator Saraki.
“Whether in the light of the letter of the Federal Government of Nigeria dated February 19, 2014, and the report of the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria exposing the misdeeds of the 1st defendant as Governor of the CBN, the handover of the Intercontinental Bank Plc by thr 1st defendant in questionable circumstances to Access Bank Plc is not an act of unprofessional conduct carried out in utmost bad faith which has adversely affected the rights and interests of the plaintiffs.
“ Whether the 3rd defendant, as the official and apex regulator of the Nigerian Capital Market acting under her powers pursuant to section 13 of the Investments and Securities Act 2007 ought not to conduct a detailed enquiry/investigation into the circumstances relating to and connected with the sale/acquisition/take-over/transfer of the shares, assets and securities of Intercontinental Bank Plc to Access Bank Plc, in order to protect the plaintiffs as shareholders and investors of Intercontinental Bank Plc from fraudulent and unfair practices and their adverse consequences and for the maintenance of fair and orderly securities market and to protect the integrity of the securities market against all forms of abuse as occasioned herein by the 1st defendant and his friends/associates/cronies”.
In the light of the foregoing, the plaintiffs held that if the answers to the questions they posed for determination are in the positive, they would be seeking for the following reliefs among others: “A declaration that the take over of the Intercontinental Bank Plc by Access Bank Plc on the scheme, direction and instructions of the 1st defendant without lawful justifications whatsoever in a bid to confer corrupt advantage upon himself and his friends/associates/cronies to the investment detriment of the plaintiffs and infringement of their personal rights, is unlawful, fraudulent, illegal, mala fide, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever”.
TRIBUNE