The Association of Local Governments of Nigeria and 702 council areas have urged the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, to dismiss a suit filed by a lawyer, Joe Agi. Mr Agi, in the suit, sought payment of $159 million as a legal fee from ALGON’s and LGAs’ accounts for his involvement in the Paris Club refund debt buyback.
However, ALGON and the LGAs disagreed with the lawyer’s claim in their reaction. They also urged the court to disregard the submission of Ted Edwards, another legal practitioner, regarding his purported legal representation and payment for professional services for the association, in a joint counter-affidavit filed by their lawyer, Donald Ayibiowu, before Justice James Omotosho.
Mr Agi instituted the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/653/2026 to demand his legal fees totalling $159 million. He named the federal government, the attorney general of the federation, finance minister and the director-general of the Debt Management Office as defendants.
He listed the accountant-general of the federation, Mr Edwards, and ALGON trustees (for themselves and on behalf of the 774 LGAs) as the fifth to seventh defendants, respectively.
The lawyer sought a declaration that the judgement in motion number M/1545/15, delivered by the FCT High Court on October 30, 2015, in favour of the sixth defendant (Mr Edwards) against the seventh defendant (ALGON) was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. He stated that this subsequently misled the first to the fifth defendants to exercise their executive and administrative actions wrongly in favour of Mr Edwards to his (Mr Agi’s) detriment.
He sought a declaration that the exercise of the executive and administrative functions of the first, third, fourth and fifth defendants was misled into issuing the promissory notes of $159 million in Mr Edwards’ name, “who was not counsel to the seventh defendant to entitle him to legal fees in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/130/13″.
He asked the judge for an order setting aside the judgement in motion number M/1545/15 delivered on October 30, 2015, for being a nullity ab initio.
Mr Agi sought an order cancelling and/or voiding the ten promissory notes issued wrongfully by the director, the Debt Management Office and the Minister of Finance in tranches of $15.9 million annually for 10 years from September 27, 2021, in favour of Mr Edwards, for having exercised their administrative and executive functions arbitrarily and wrongfully.
He sought an order mandating the first to fifth defendants to forthwith redeem the four promissory notes amounting to $63.6 million that had since fallen due and pay the same to him.
The lawyer also sought an order directing the first, third, fourth and fifth defendants to immediately reissue the six remaining promissory notes in his name, covering the same dates originally issued in Mr Edwards’ name.
In the affidavit attached to the suit, Mr Agi deposed that he was the lawyer briefed by Linas International Limited and ALGON to represent them to sue the federal government, AGF, finance minister and AGoF to recover the wrongful deductions from the LGAs in the London Paris Club debt buyback.
He said the judgement was entered on December 3, 2013, by Justice A.F.A. Ademola in the Federal High Court and that ALGON, to Mr Edwards’ knowledge, agreed to pay him 10 per cent of whatever sum was awarded. He said, pursuant to the judgement, he filed a garnishee proceeding wherein the court made the garnishee order nisi for the payment of $3.188 billion.
He explained that when Mr Edwards and others started laying claim to portions of the judgement, ALGON wrote to him and the court in letters dated February 17, 2016, and February 11, 2016, raising alarm and informing him as lead counsel that Mr Edwards obtained his judgement by fraud and that he was not their counsel. He also mentioned that Mr Edwards’ spurious claim to the payment of legal fees was dismissed in a well-considered ruling by Mr Ademola on June 27, 2016.
According to him, pursuant to the fraudulent judgement obtained by the sixth defendant, the first, third, fourth and fifth defendants, without my knowledge, proceeded into meetings with the sixth defendant.
“In the exercise of their executive and administrative functions, they offered to pay $159 million and recommended the same to the chief of staff to the president in a letter dated December 23, 2019, and put the name of the sixth defendant on the said letter, which is annexed as Exhibit JAI0,” he said.
Mr Agi said following the approval for the issuance of the promissory notes in ten tranches of $15.9 million annually, payable from October 15, 2027, totalling $159 million, he promptly protested to the first to fifth defendants that their action was wrong and dangerous.
Mr Agi averred that he was the “one who conducted the case and so entitled to the payment of the legal fees in issue which was administratively issued to the 6th defendant, howbeit wrongfully”.
He said he had written to the second and third defendants (the finance minister and the AGF) requesting the reissuance of the promissory notes in his name, pointing out that it would be in the interest of justice for the defendants to reissue the promissory notes in his name.
Mr Edwards, in his counter-affidavit, disagreed with Mr Agi’s submission. Mr Edwards, also a lawyer, told the court that the board of trustees of ALGON briefed him for legal consultancy and management services with respect to the London/Paris Club debt buyback over deductions. He said his appointment initially was by the chairman of ALGON but was later ratified by the entire board, and the scope expanded.
Mr Edwards said before his engagement, ALGON engaged a consultant to compute and recover from the federal government funds belonging to the 774 LGAs which the federal government illegally deducted from the local government fund at the Federation Account for London/Paris Club debt buyback. He said the consultant, Linas International Limited, had filed a suit for that purpose at the Federal High Court identified as suit number FHC/CV/CS/180/2013.
He said Mr Agi initiated the suit at the instance of Linas International Ltd, the consultant to ALGON/LGAs. Mr Edwards submitted that Mr Agi’s fee was subsumed in the fees payable to Linas International Limited.
He said, “By Mr Agi’s engagement, his fees should be borne by the consultant, not the LGAs. This agreement between Linas International and the Local Government/ALGON was made a term of the judgment of the court in suit number FHC/CV/CS/130/2013 delivered by the plaintiff as Exhibit JAI.”
Mr Edwards argued that he was briefed independently by the ALGON Board from the brief given to Linas International Limited, who in turn briefed Mr Agi to help it do the recovery. He insisted that he was briefed by ALGON to collaborate with the consultant doing the recovery through Agi and to ensure that the funds being recovered are not dissipated by ALGON management.
He said he was also briefed to ensure that he carried out his brief to the satisfaction of the employer, who issued a letter of no objection to payment of his fees to the first defendant (the federal government).
Mr Edwards said that in furtherance of his brief, he engaged Ikechukwu Ezechukwu to help him in the processes to the knowledge of his employers, ALGON. He, however, said that the letters tendered by Mr Agi as exhibits JA4, JAS and JAG were letters written in furtherance of the brief given to Linas International Ltd.
According to him, the letters were copied to Mr Ezechukwu because the ALGON board is aware that he engaged him as a leading member of his team.
The sixth defendant said that when he was not paid, he sued ALGON, representing the 774 LGAs, at the FCT High Court and obtained judgement and a garnishee absolute for the enforcement of the judgement against the CBN.
Besides, he said when the federal government showed reluctance to obey the judgement of the FCT High Court, he consulted with Mr Agi, who was prosecuting the recovery, and applied that his judgement be registered in garnishee proceedings over suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/130/2013. He stated that it was the garnishee proceedings in that suit which Mr Agi was prosecuting as the lead counsel at the instance of Linas International Limited.
Mr Edwards said, contrary to Mr Agi’s claim, his application filed by the plaintiff (Mr Agi) was rejected on the basis that the court could not execute the judgement of the FCT High Court nor sit on appeal over its decision. He averred that Mr Agi knew full well that ALGON did not brief him and that he (Mr Edwards) was the one briefed, stating, “In fact, the plaintiff had acted for me in this matter of recovery of my legal fees and had on about two occasions written to the Hon. A.G. of the Federation, acting as my counsel, for the recovery of my legal fees. The plaintiff’s letter to the honourable attorney general of the federation dated 3rd January, 2017, is delivered as Exhibit G,” he said.
Mr Edwards said he executed his contract with ALGON satisfactorily to the effect that he was issued with a letter of no objection to the payment of his fees.
But a counter affidavit by the seventh defendant, comprising ALGON and 702 LGAs in Nigeria, deposed to by Bello Lawal, asked the court to dismiss the suit. Mr Lawal, who is the elected national president of ALGON and the current executive chairman of Kaita LGA in Katsina, said they were familiar with the facts of the case. He said as a necessary and proper party, his attention was drawn to the pendency of the suit around May 30.
“I presented same to my colleagues at the NEC for deliberations at the office, and we have elected to state the following facts,” he said.
Mr Lawal said they are persons of fundamental and irrefutable interest in the affairs of the subject matter of the funds being sought to be appropriated under the guise of purported legal representation and payment for professional service for ALGON.
He said ALGON is a common platform for the administration of all LGAs as the third tier of government in Nigeria. He said the seventh defendant and the 702 LGAs are the principals and owners of the funds, allegedly cornered and now sought to be awarded between Messrs Agi and Edwards “flowing from the face of copious claims and documents filed before this court”.
Mr Lawal, who called himself the chief accounting officer of ALGON, said contrary to Mr Agi’s deposition, the association and the LGAs did not and never engaged the professional services of the plaintiff and the sixth defendant (Messrs Agi and Edwards) directly. He argued that all the surreptitiously obtained documents from officials of ALGON were never issued before the commencement of the substantive suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/130/13.
Besides, he said none of the documents was intended to confer direct and/or concurrent contractual rights on Mr Agi because they had previously briefed Linas International Ltd to do the same job for which Mr Agi is now claiming the LGAs engaged him, as is being claimed before the court.
He said that contrary to Mr Agi’s averments in paragraphs three and four of his affidavit, Mr Ademola, in his judgement, ordered a deduction at source of 20 per cent of the judgement sum to be paid to the first plaintiff through its solicitors into the Skye Bank Plc account. He said Mr Ademola delivered the judgement in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/130/2013.
Mr Lawal said Mr Agi eventually engaged in a legal brawl and struggle for his professional fees with Linas International Ltd after he had concluded his work as agreed. He said this led Mr Agi to file another suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1193/2017 and went on to clearly posit that Linas International Ltd engaged him while it was working as a consultant to the LGAs.
He said neither Messrs Agi nor Edwards was laying claims to the funds directly or indirectly, nor had the consent of ALGON and LGAs, the owners of the funds, to deal proprietarily with funds belonging to them from the federation accounts as claimed by the plaintiff. He insisted that the first to fifth defendants do not have any constitutional right to pay out funds belonging to them without their express authorisation.
Mr Lawal, therefore, asked the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
Although the case came up for adoption on the last adjourned date, counsel who appeared for the finance minister (third defendant), Oluwafemi Korisade, gave the court information from her office. She told the court that her office said the AGF had instructed the counsel representing the first and second defendants (federal government and AGF) to amend their processes.
Also, Mr Ezechukwu, who appeared for Mr Edwards, said the plaintiff had just served on them a process, and they were still within time to respond.
The judge consequently adjourned the matter until September 30 for hearing.
(NAN)
