A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Friday dismissed a suit challenging the appointment of some groups to monitor the deployment of the $300million recovered Abacha loot.
That was after the presiding judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a judgment upheld the preliminary objection raised by the Federal Government to the effect that the suit was statue barred.
Justice Ekwo also found that the plaintiffs who sued the Federal Government failed to establish their legal personalities, having not supplied any evidence of their registration as legal entities.
The Federal Government had in the year 2020 upon the repatriation of the $300 million to Nigeria from the United Kingdom announced that the money would be used to fund the completion of the Second Niger Bridge, the Abuja – Kano dualisation and the Lagos – Ibadan Expressway.
The Federal Government of Nigeria, the United States Government and the Bailiwick of Jersey then entered into a tripartite agreement for the implementation of the $300 million Abacha loot on the condition that the funds would be used as part of the funding for the completion of the Second Niger Bridge, the Abuja – Kano dualisation and the Lagos – Ibadan Expressway.
Flowing from the agreement, the Federal Government sent out invitation for consultants to submit proposals to the Federal Ministry of Justice, whereupon, the claimant PPP Advisories Consortium was among the 4 prequalified firms among the 17 firms that responded to the request for prequalification.
After the evaluation of the financial proposals of the 4 prequalified consultants, the claimants PPP ADVISORIES CONSORTIUM was disqualified on alleged deficiencies in the claims submitted for qualifications.
The disqualification was conveyed to the plaintiffs in a federal government letter of July 28, 2020
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the claimants – PPP Advisories; Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) and Issa Shuaibu & Co (PPP Advisories Consortium) – approached the federal high court challenging the legality or otherwise of the Federal Government decision.
Listed as defendants in the writ of summons marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1449/2020 and dated November 3, 2020, are the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice (AGF); the Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General of the Federation’ Mr Dayo Apata, SAN, (sued as Chairman Ministerial Tenders Board) and the Bureau of Public Procurement.
The claimants through their counsel, Dr Daniel Bwala, urged the court
to make an order setting aside the decision of the procurement panel adjudging its Technical and Financial proposal as non-responsive.
They equally urged the court to make an order directing the defendants to issue a letter declaring them as the winning bidder, and invite them for negotiation, having achieved the highest score and therefore emerged the winner of the bid.
The plaintiffs alleged that the Federal Government’s procurement panel arbitrarily disqualified them and recommended the firm that allegedly came fourth (Cleen Foundation) as the preferred bidder to be awarded the contract.
They had prayed the court to among others, declare that their disqualification by the defendants as communicated via a letter dated 28 July 2020 wherein their technical/financial bids submitted were not adjudged responsive due to the fact that the lead partner is not a registered Civil Society Organization is wrongful, illegal and void, on the grounds that they satisfied the requirements of the Request for Proposal (RfP) in respect of the Monitoring of the Implementation of the Tripartite Agreement for the sharing, transfer, disposition, repatriation and management of forfeited Assets and the entire bidding process.
They urged the court to make an order directing the defendants to issue a letter declaring them as the winning bidder, and invite them for negotiation, having achieved the highest score and therefore emerged the winner of the bid
However in his final judgment, Justice Ekwo agreed with the defendants that the suit had become statute-barred having been instituted outside the three months stipulated by law.
The Judge rejected all the public documents tendered by the plaintiffs to establish the case because they were not certified as required by law.
Justice Ekwo also held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they were legally registered as required by law.
“I have said that the court in deciding the case will look into all issues raised and that the case of the plaintiffs must succeed on its own merit and not on the weakness or failure of the defendants.
“I can safely say at this point that I am unable to ascribe probative value to any of the documents tendered by the plaintiffs to establish this case
” I find no merit in this case and for this reason this suit is liable to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss it accordingly”, Justice Ekwo said.
