In 2006, the Nigerian government paid $12 billion to get $18 billion debt written off by the Paris Club of international creditors.
The Nigeria Governors’ Forum has again accused the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, of having more than a passing interest in the controversial $418 million requested by consultants with respect to the Paris Club refund.
The spokesperson for the NGF, Abdulrazaque Bello-Barkindo disclosed this while speaking on a Channels Television programme, Sunrise Daily.
In 2006, the Nigerian government paid $12 billion to get $18 billion debt written off by the Paris Club of international creditors.
However, because the payment was made directly from the revenue accruing to the entire federation, states and local government areas that did not owe the Paris Club asked the Nigerian government for a refund.
Some consultants surfaced along the line to claim a percentage of the refunds as payment for their services to the states and councils.
Some contractors also claimed they were asked to execute projects across the country by the Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON).
Questions were asked about why states would need consultants to negotiate with the federal government over the refund, while the projects said to have been awarded by ALGON turned out to be mostly non-existent.
The governors had asked for a forensic audit. While the contractors and consultants went to court, Malami curiously went to negotiate an out-of-court settlement with them and agreed to pay $418 million as judgment debt.
SaharaReporters recently reported how the minister asked the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele to release the fund to Linas International Ltd, a company belonging to Prince Ned Nwoko, a former House of Representatives member and other consultants over the Paris Club refund.
He claimed ignorance of various court cases on the payment and asked the CBN to release the money.
On Thursday, Malami claimed the governors had no basis for disputing the payments.
Speaking when while appearing at the Ministerial Media Briefing organised by the Presidential Communications Team at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, the minister reminded the governors that they created the liability whose payment they have also indemnified.
He said that the protests by the governors' forum were not only unjustified but a clear case of absence of defence.
The AGF added that the consultants were hired by the governors and that they had taken steps to pay before the governors backtracked and took the matter to court.
In his response, Bello-Barkindo said Malami should be more concerned about how the government can fund university education and not funnel money into private pockets.
“There is no component that compels the governors’ forum to pay consultants anything, and there is no agreement between the consultants collectively and governors collectively,” he said.
“The Paris fund money has been exhausted, and the consultants and the attorney general are expecting the money to be deducted from states’ accounts from sources over 52 or 58 months. That is unheard of.
“And what the NGF is saying is that there is no money to be paid and the monies that have been paid are gross errors.
“Where they are asking the monies to be gotten from is the biggest sacrilege. This money belongs to the states, the masses of this country and because you’re powerful, you want money to be taken and given to you.
“That’s why they are using the attorney general of the federation to get the money at the source because the state does not have any reason (to pay).
“What the attorney general is claiming, that there is a consent judgement is what the NGF is saying did not exist.
“What the NGF is asking for is evidence of work done. Some of them said they have constructed primary health care centres across the country, and other said they have provided boreholes, these are physical things that you can show.
“This matter is in court. The court is the only authority that can determine clearly whether there is a reason for payment or not, why are highly placed lawyers afraid of their own platform?”