A defence witness, Yahaya Nasiru, told a Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday that Kastina State government did not enter into consulting agreement with the Mauritz Walton over the Paris Club Refund.
Maurice Walton Consulting Firm sued the Kastina State government, accusing the state of failure to pay it 20 percent of the $217.3 million (N66.3bn) consultant fee due to it from the Paris Club refund by the Federal Government.
But the Kastina State government refused to pay on the ground that the contract with the firm was terminated half way for failure to abide with terms of contract.
Nasiru, an accountant, who works in debt management department of the state ministry of finance, said there was no contractual agreement over recovery of the over deduction.
Under cross examination from counsel to the plaintiff, Chijioke Okoli, Nasiru said the state did not have any issue with the Federal Government to have engaged Mauritz Walton over the deduction by the Federal Ministry of Finance. “There was no letter that we complained of over deduction to the firm,” he said.
When he was made to read a letter, dated August 24, 2014, which engaged the firm to reconcile the debt profile of the state toward arriving at the over deduction, Nasiru said another letter was written to cancel the contract because the firm did not fulfil some conditions in the agreement.
Asked to produce any letter where it was stated that the firm did not fulfil some conditions, Nasiru said he had no letter to that effect, but only the disengagement letter.
The trial judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo, thereafter fixed January 22, 2021, for adoption of addresses from all the parties.
The financial consulting firm took Kastina State to court claiming N13,253,774,451.60 being 20 percent of the total N66.3 billion refund due to Katsina, being fees for its consultancy services to the state.
In the suit, the firm claimed that it was appointed by Katsina State, via a letter dated August 18, 2014, with reference No: MOF/STAFF/409/1/31 to ascertain and recover the excess deductions by the Federal Government from its account to service its external debt between July 1995 and March 2002.
In its statement of claim, the firm said the Katsina State government agreed to pay it 20 percent of what was due to the state from the excess deduction, commonly referred to as the Paris Club Refund.
Mauritz Waltson stated, in a witness statement that, through the firm’s efforts, it was ascertained that Katsina State was entitled to $217,274,991.01 (estimated at N66,268,872,258.00 calculated at an exchange rate of $1 to N305) as Paris Club Refund.
The statement added that his firm’s efforts yielded further results when President Muhammadu Buhari, in 2016 directed the payment of the first tranche of the Paris Club refund to states, including Katsina.
It further stated that despite the pendency of the suit and existing interim orders by the court, restraining further payment to Katsina, the 2nd defendant (Central Bank of Nigeria), on the instruction of the 1st defendant (Finance Minister) recently paid N35,364,610,435 to the 4th defendant (Katsina State), through the 5th defendant United Bank for Africa (UBA).
The firm also seeks an order compelling the Katsina State government to pay it the N13.35bn, being its due remuneration for the consultancy services it rendered to the state “leading to the recovery and release of the 4th defendant’s said external debt excess debits refunds.”
In the alternative, the plaintiff wants the court to order the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants – Finance Minister, the CBN and the Accountant General of the Federation – to pay it the amount due to it.
It urged the court to order the sum due to it be paid along with 20 percent interest from October 1, 2018 until judgment and thereafter, at 10 per-cent until the judgment sum is fully paid.
The plaintiff equally seeks N75m cost against the defendants – Finance Minister, the Central Bankmof Nugeria (CBN), the Accountant General of the Federation (AGF), Katsina State government and the UBA.
All the defendants have objected to the suit and urged the court to dismiss it on the grounds that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs it seeks.
The finance minister, the CBN, the AGF and UBA denied being party to the agreement between the plaintiff and the Katsina State government.
