News Investigators/ Tunde Omosebi has filed a 990 trillion pounds suit against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Mr Olayemi Cardoso, and co-defendants over allegations bordering on breach of his fundamental human rights.
Mr Omosebi, who referred to himself as “His Majesty,” a businessman and a politician in the suit filed before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, also sought exemplary damages of £99 trillion against the defendants.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that while CBN governor is the 1st defendant, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc, Guarantee Trust Bank (GTB) Plc, Zenith Bank Plc respectively are 2nd to 4th defendants.
Mr Omosebi, who is the claimant, equally sued the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and House of Representatives’ Speaker, Tajudeen Abbas, as 5th to 6th defendants in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/766/2024.
In the originating motion dated June 5, 2024, but filed Jan. 29, the claimant sought six reliefs.
Mr Omosebi prayed that “an order be entered for the sum of £990,000,000,000,000.00 (nine hundred and ninety trillion pounds) for traumatic torture and Enforcement of Fundamental Rights Rule, 2009 as guaranteed by the Constitution.
“An order be entered that converts CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA to RESERVE BANK OF NIGERIA as guaranteed under SEC 212 of CRIMINAL CODE OF NIGERIA BANKS.
“An order be entered that Nigeria banks involved with these financial irregularities, operating and contributed to the disadvantaged economy be converted to DRIG BANK with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) per the industrial arrangements at the Assembly of Business Owners and the Federal Executive Council (FEC), and submit same to the Chairman, Federal Executive Council.”
He further sought “exemplary damages against defendants for £99,000,000,000,000.00 (ninety-nine trillion pounds).
“10% interest on the total recoverable amount.
“N5,000,000.00 (five million naira) cost of suit.”
Mr Omosebi, in the statement attached to the application, said as a businessman, politician and by virtue of his positions as “the Chairman, Federal Executive Council, and Prime Minister of Federal Republic of Nigeria, I am very conversant with the facts of this matter.”
He said he gets paid based on his role, projects and contracts executed by his businesses, investments portfolio as contained in the corporate resolution.
“At the trial of this suit, the applicant shall rely on the terms of the corporate resolution and schedule of distribution,” he said.
Mr Omosebi alleged that the defendants breached the assembly industrial agreement/arrangement, denied his Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rule 2009, Sections 35, 43, 45 and Fundamental Objectives and Directives of State Policy 14(2)(b) and 16(1)(a-b).
According to him, approximately four years ago, the applicant opened and operates few corporate and personal accounts with defendants 2 with aim of managing these finance per the constitution.
“That, with no just cause, approximately seven (7) months till date, applicant’s corporate and personal accounts have been unaccessible due to defendants 2 & 3 negligence, oppressive and abusive conduct which violates the constitution and purpose of operating a bank.
“That, defendant (2) agreed to deposit $50,000,000.00 (fifty million dollars) in applicant’s account with the bank in 2022 in the interim. and till date such has not been credited.
“That, additionally defendant (2) suggested that DRIG BANK operation be moved to defendant (2) building at Maitama to justify herein entrusted funds.
“That, over £500,000,000,000.00 (five hundred billion pounds) were entrusted with defendants 1, 2 and 3 among other funds with herein co-defendant(s)/banks that have not been credited nor accounted for till date to the applicant.
“That, defendant 1 commits perjury by presenting to the general public a vague statement claiming to be signed by applicant, which in turn breached the other of the Assembly and affects the credibility of the applicant.
“That, defendant(s) as of January 2024 breach the industrial agreement consented to during the assembly of Business Owners, Federal Executive Council and the Chairman, Federal Executive Council as well as, infringed on applicants intellectual property, obstruct applicant from operating his accounts, access to cash among other concerns as guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rule 2009 in accordance with the Constitution.
“That, defendants 5 & 6 deliberately denied applicants of his fundamental rights and entitlements till date as agreed and guaranteed under the constitution and the Gazette 485.”
The claimant said based on the facts and defendants’ abusive conduct, disregard for rule of the assembly and constitution, he respectfully prayed that the court grants his reliefs and enter judgement as prayed in accordance with the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules 2009 as guaranteed by the constitution:
In a preliminary objection by the CBN governor’s lawyer, F.H. Maikano, the lawyer argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the claimant had failed to disclose cause of action against her client.
She said the suit was bereft of facts, hence, it was incompetent.
The UBA, GTB, Zenith Bank, including the Senate President and the House speaker in their respective submissions, urged the court to dismiss the suit for failure to disclose cause of action against them.
They argued that the claimant lacked the locus standi to sustain the action for the failure to disclose cause or reasonable cause of action against them.
Sonny Ajala, SAN, who appeared for the Zenith Bank (4th defendant) in a preliminary objection filed on Feb. 14, challenged the competence of the suit.
Mr Ajala sought an order setting the objection down for hearing on points of law raised in the application and an order “dismissing in limine the suit number::FHC/ABJ/CS/766/2024 against the bank.”
According to him, there is no cause and/or reasonable cause of action disclosed in the statement of the applicant and the depositions as contained in the 10 (ten) paragraphs affidavit in support of the originating motion against the 4th defendant.
He argued that Omosebi, in the suit anchored on the alleged infringement of his fundamental rights, failed to show how the bank compromised his right.
“The statement of the applicant and the depositions as contained in the 10 (ten) paragraphs affidavit in support of the originating motion failed to show any banker-customer contractual relationship between the claimant and the 4th defendant.
“The statement of the applicant and the depositions as contained in the 10 (ten) paragraphs affidavit in support of the originating motion failed to show any iota of privity of contract and/or privity of estate between the claimant and the 4th defendant.
“The suit of the claimant is not maintainable against the 4th defendant as the 4th defendant Is an /improper and unnecessary party in the suit of the claimant,” the lawyer said.
Ajala submitted that the suit “is brought mala fide against the 4th defendant” and that it was “speculative, vague and mere academic exercise.”
“The reliefs sought in the claimant’s sult are nebulous and not grantable,” he added.
Responding, Omosebi, who appeared by himself in the case, urged the court to discountenance the defendants’ arguments.
The claimant, while moving his counter affidavit in opposition to the preliminary objection, referred to himself as “the Supreme Council and Chairman of FEC.”
He alleged that “President Bola Tinubu and other presidents in the world are under his command and authority.”
He insisted that the CBN and the commercial banks named in the suit breached his fundamental rights, hence, he was entitled to the rekiefs sought.
After listening to lawyers representing parties in the suit, Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter until June 4 to rule on the preliminary objection of the defendants.
NAN