N25m fine: Pay off PUNCH debt over 28 years, court tells AGF

The Attorney General of the Federation has been asked to pay his debt of N25 million and N104,000, which was granted to the PUNCH newspaper 28 years ago by Judge T. A. Odunowo.

The judgment creditors/plaintiffs are PUNCH Nigeria Limited and Bola Bolawole (then editor of PUNCH newspaper) while the judgment debtors are the Attorney General of the Federation, the Inspector General of Police, Commissioner of Police (Lagos State Command), State Security Service and Chief of Army Staff.

On July 29, 1994, Judge Odunowo of the Federal High Court entered judgment in favor of the judgment creditors/plaintiffs of the said sum respectively as damages for unlawful and unconstitutional closure, invasion , consequential termination and or disruption of the lawful activities of the first petitioner as well as damages for unlawful detention of the second petitioner and cost of action for judgment creditors/plaintiffs against judgment debtors.

AGF, on behalf of the other judgment debtors, dissatisfied with the judgment of the court, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal but on March 18, 2004, the court dismissed the appeal judgment debtors.

Again, the AGF on behalf of other judgment debtors still unsatisfied with the Court of Appeal's judgment appealed again to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court on June 14 2019, dismissed the appeal of the judgment debtors, in which the AGF was represented by C. I. Okopko, SAN.

While trying to enforce the judgments of the courts, the judgment creditor, through his lawyer, Clément Onwuenwunor, initiated garnishment proceedings to demand immediate payment of said sum.

The seized third parties are the Central Bank of Nigeria, Diamond Bank Plc, Ecobank Plc, Union Bank Plc, Skye Bank Plc, Nigerian International Bank Ltd (CITIGROUP), Standard Chartered Bank Plc and Fidelity Bank Plc. < /p>

The others are First City Monument Bank Plc, Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc, Wema Bank Plc, Sterling Bank Plc, Zenith Bank Plc, Guaranty Trust Bank Plc, First Bank of Nigeria Plc and United Bank for Africa. < /p>

However, the judgment creditors wrote three unanswered letters to the AGF for the satisfaction of the judgment debts.

On May 30, 2022, the court issued a nisi order against the first garnishee, ordering him to justify why the order should not be issued.

But on July 18, 2022, the first garnishee served the judgment creditors' lawyer with an undated preliminary notice of objection in which he raised a single issue that the consent of the AGF who is the first judgment debtor in the case is required before the first garnishee can comply with the judgment of the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

At Friday's garnishment proceedings hearing before Judge Ambrose Lewis-Allago, the first garnishee represented by U. F. Adigun, in a preliminary objection, asked the court to rescind the order made by the court.

She said that the first garnishee/plaintiff is a public officer and the law requires that the consent of the AGF must first be sought and obtained before the court can issue an order garnishment nisi against the first garnishee / plaintiff.

She said: "The judgment creditors did not seek and obtain the prior consent of the AGF to order nisi to seize the monies allegedly due to the judgment debtors pursuant to the provisions of section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Procedure Act.

"In this case, Monsignor will note in the file that the consent of the AGF was neither sought nor obtained before the granting of the garnishment order nisi by this court for seize the sums in custody of the garnishee who is a public officer.

"This, in light of the above authorities, renders the nisi garnishment order granted in favor of the judgment creditors against the first garnishee/plaintiff void, even having been granted without the required skill.

"We also urge this court to release the first garnishee from this lawsuit and strike the name of the first garnishee/plaintiff from the proceeding, as the court has no jurisdiction to hear of the garnishment procedure against the first garnishee/plaintiff.”

In its response, Onwuenwunor argued that the above premise requiring the petitioners to obtain the consent of the AGF, "which has obstructed the execution of the judgment of this court for 28 years by its oppressive appeals all the way to the Supreme Court and refusing to respond to plaintiffs' attorney letters in Exhibits C01, C02 and C03 will allow the AGF to be judge in its case. It is not possible."

He also argued that the cause of action in this case shows that AGF and other parties committed despicable acts of destruction, looting, ...