The Group Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Mauritz Walton Nig. Ltd, Dr. Maurice Ibe told a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Kubwa, Abuja, on Wednesday that the contract to reconcile debt owed Abia State government and many other states by the federal government was not an engagement by tender.
Dr. Ibe, who spoke under cross examination from counsel to Abia State government and Attorney General of the State, Tony Ogbulafor, said the contract was based on his proposal to the state government and not a government tender.
Mauritz Walton is suing Abia State government for refusing to pay its consultancy fee of N12bn after it successfully carried out the work.
Abia State government, Attorney General of the state, United Bank for Africa and Ziplon Concept, are the 1st to 4th defendants respectively in the case.
Under cross examination by Ogbulafor, Ibe was asked whether the contract went through tender board, competitive bidding and evaluation or if he appeared before any committee, Ibe said: “I was never asked to appear before any committee. The process of consultancy for Paris Club Refund was never at any point in time seen or recorded as a regular contract as it was never tendered or went through procurement board. The contract was based on my intellectual property and proposal written to every state in the country. This was based a reconciliation of the debt profile of each state, from information gathered by forensic audit, and put in form of a proposal I wrote the states. This was reviewed fully and thoroughly by each state. They engaged me to further review what we have proposed to them, to determine the veracity of what we have put to them through the Ministry of Finance, Debt Management Office (DMO) and the office of the Accountant General of the Federation (OAGF).
“So, it was not a general contract tendered, that would go through procurement process. At no time through out the process that a state government, Abia or any other, asked me to appear before any committee to ratify the contract.”
When asked if he knew that a contract of more than N50m cannot be awarded without going through tender board, procurement committee and council of state, Ibe said he does not know but rather he sticks to the rule of his professional engagement as he is not a lawyer.
Asked if he has seen a report prepared by the Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission, claiming to have reconciled states debt with the federal government, Dr. Ibe said he receives from time to time reports from the comission but said his work with Abia had nothing to do with the commission.
Attempt by Ogbulafor to present the report as exhibit was rejected by Isaac Anumudu, counsel to Ibe.
He objected to the admissibility of the report on the ground that it was not relevant to the case, insisting “relevancy is is the basis of admission of any document.”
Meanwhile, another dimension was added to the proceedings, when Anumudu objected to filing of statement of defence by the 4th defendant, Ziplon Concept, represented by Jeff Nijokonye (SAN).
Anumudu argued that the defendant since two years ago abandoned the case, thereby forfeiting his rights to be part of the case.
He held that the rule of the court allows for 21 days to respond to matter unlike the instance case where the 4th defendant abandoned the case and suddenly reappeared to file statement of defence without any application to file out of time.
He said by proceedings of March 26, 2019, the 4th defendant had waved his right to file processes. He said coming now to simply dumped the process on the court without asking for extension of time to file was incompetent .
He stated further that when the counsel was asked if he needed 21 days, as allow by rule of the court, to respond to the plaintiff’s processes, he said he didn’t intend to respond and so didn’t need any time because he said he wanted the case to move fast.
According to Anumudu, by that he irretrievably and irrevocably waved his right to enter defence at this stage of the case. “To now come around and dumped his processes on the court without asking for leave of extension or abridged of time is late in the day,” he said.
He thus urged the court to discountenance the submission of Jeff Nijokonye and foreclose his rights to file the statement of defence.
However, Nijokonye argued that for fair hearing and justice, the right of the 4th defendant cannot be foreclosed. He said that all cases cited by the counsel to the plaintiff were irrelevant to the instant case, adding the argument was misconstrued and misconceived.
Justice K. N Ogbonnaya, the trial judge, in her ruling held that she adopted the argument of the plaintiff that the 4th defendant had already relinquished his right to file statement of defence.
She held that the count is of record which can be recalled anytime. She held that mouth can hold someone captive, so also the submission of of counsel.
According to her, the court adopted the submission of plaintiff’s counsel not to allow the statement of defence as the defendant has relinguished his right to file statement of defence.
She recalled that the court ordered two years ago that the amendment of statement of the plaintiff should reflect the name of the 4th defendant and to make sure all parties were served accordingly, particularly the 4th defendant when he had come then with application to be made a party in the case which was allowed.
She said it was most unfortunate that after two years, three months, and two days, the same counsel now surfaced to file a statement of defence and dumped same on the court.
“Thank God the record of court of 26/3/2019 when he relinguished his right is there for everyone to see. It is imperative to note that fair hearing is not an open cheque which anybody can be cashed anytime, anywhere, otherwise it will loss it efficacy.”
She wondered why the 4th defendant will come to court and want to be part of proceedings, to respond to the plaintiff’s statement on oath after too years. “The court at all times stands for justice, for the rich or the poor, the lowly or the highly placed, this is the oath judges took”, she said.
Stating further, she said for the counsel to the 4th defendant to say the amendment of statement of the plaintif is incompetent was most unfortunate. She queried, “why have you not challenged its incompetency since two years now, when the amendment was a consequential order of the court?”
“This court is bond by its record because doing otherwise will be judicial stupidity and gross rascality. I’m not stupid. The 4th defendant is held captive by the submission he made on 26/3/2019, and filing his response is out of time, that is order if this court,” she held.
However, on the ground of fair hearing, the court granted the 4th defendant to cross examine the plaintiff if he so wishes.
In the suit marked: FCT/HC/CV/2470/2017, filed by Charles Ude, the plaintiff is seeking the order of the court to make Abia government pay Mauritz Walton Nig.Ltd, the sum of N12bn being consulting fee for the Paris Club Refund.
The firm said Abia government had engaged it to pursue the refund of excess deductions on foreign loans and miscellaneous charges in exchange of 30% percent of any fund recovered.
In the affidavit, Dr. Ibe averred that Abia state government owes Mauritz Walton Nigeria Ltd the sum of N12bn.
He said Abia state government had engaged Mauritz Walton Nig. Ltd on the 3rd of November, 2014 to pursue the refund of excess deductions on foreign loans and miscellaneous charges in exchange of 30 percent of any fund recovered.
But since completion of the reconciliation, according to Dr. Ibe, Abia government refused to fulfill its part of the agreement, but rather suspiciously brought in another firm to claim the consultancy fee.
The court adjourned the case to Oct. 4, 6 and 7 for the defendants to open their defence.
Stay ahead with the latest updates! Join The ConclaveNG on WhatsApp and Telegram for real-time news alerts, breaking stories, and exclusive content delivered straight to your phone. Don’t miss a headline — subscribe now!
