A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, yesterday, restrained the Federal Government from acting on the report of the Farouk Lawan-led House of Representatives’ Ad-Hoc Committee that probed the subsidy regime, especially as it relates to one of the indicted oil companies, Integrated Oil and Gas Limited.
The court, in an interlocutory injunction it granted yesterday, further restrained the Inspector General of Police from taking any action against the oil firm, pending the hearing of a substantive suit it filed before the court.
Besides the Attorney General of the Federation and the Police boss, others joined as defendants in the suit were the House of Representatives, Hon. Farouk M. Lawan (for himself and on behalf of the House of Reps Ad-hoc Committee on the Monitoring of the subsidy regime), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, ICPC.
It will be recalled that the Lawan-led probe panel, had in its report, indicted Integrated Oil and Gas Limited, which was reportedly owned by the former Minister of Interior, Captain Emeka Iheanacho.
In its report, the House of Reps Ad-hoc Committee, alleged that the company illegally collected petroleum subsidy funds from the Federal Government, saying it was liable to refund the sum of N13, 252, 055, 429.00 into the federation account.
Dissatisfied with the recommendation of the probe committee, the oil company approached the high court, asking it to go ahead and determine “whether having regard to the provision of section 6(1) and (6) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), it is competent for the 1st and 2nd defendants, (House of Reps and Farouk Lawan), in the exercise of their powers under section 88(1) (a) (b) (i) (ii) of the Constitution, to take a decision or adjudge that the Petroleum Products in respect of which the plaintiff received subsidy refunds in the sum of 13, 252, 055, 429.00, from the Federal Government is not sustainable and therefore not good enough to attract any subsidy payment.
“Assuming without conceding that the answer to question one is in the affirmative, whether the 1st and 2nd defendants were not bound to make available to the plaintiff, particulars of the allegations concerning the importation, distribution and consumption of petroleum products and/or the payment of subsidy by the Federal Government from the year 2006 to year 2011, in so far as they affect the plaintiff and afford the plaintiff as opportunity of making representations to them in respect thereof, before taking a decision or adjudging that part of the subsidy refunds paid to the plaintiff by the Federal Government in respect of petroleum products imported by the plaintiff between 2008 and 2011 were not sustainable and therefore not good enough to attract any subsidy refunds and consequently that the plaintiff should refund the sum of 13, 252, 055, 429.00, to the Federal Government of Nigeria.”
As well as, “whether it is lawful for any of the defendants to act or take any action or step against the plaintiff or any of its officers, servants, agents or representatives, in respect of any matter relating to, pertaining to, connected with or arising from the report of the House of Representatives’ Ad-hoc Committee on the monitoring of the subsidy regime, as adopted and/or approved by the 1st defendant in its resolution passed on 25th April, 2012, in so far as it affects the plaintiff.
While granting accelerated hearing on the substantive suit, Presiding Justice Gladys Olotu ordered all the parties to maintain their status-quo, pending the determination of the court case.
Meanwhile, counsel to the Federal Government, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, expressed his satisfaction that the case was granted expeditious hearing, saying the government was committed towards conducting a holistic investigation into the alleged subsidy fraud with a view to bringing all the culprits to book.
He said the report of the Lawal led panel was still being considered as a fact finding report that would require further scrutiny by the relevant security agencies to enable the commencement of appropriate legal actions against the alleged oil thieves.
He said: “the 3rd respondent, as the Minister of Justice will not take any step that will render the eventual judgment of this court a nullity.”
The case was subsequently adjourned till October 18 for hearing.
