House Minority Caucus demands an investigation into the $418 million judgment debts

The House Minority Caucus has demanded an investigation into President Muhammadu Buhari’s recent approval of the payment of $418 million in Paris Club refund-related judgment debts to six creditors, despite widespread national opposition from stakeholders such as state governors, local government chairmen, and anti-graft agencies.

In a statement issued by its leader, Hon. Ndudi Elumelu, the caucus said Buhari should take note that the consent judgment he is relying on for the payment is cloudy, opaque, and raises apprehensions of a massive swindle on the national treasure, which requires an immediate investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The lawmakers insisted on taking into account the objections raised by the Association of Local Governments in Nigeria (ALGON) and the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) in calling for a forensic audit of the creditors’ claims.

Read Also:  FCTA raids criminal hideouts in Gwarimpa, arresting 49 suspects

As a result, it urged Buhari to halt all payment processes until the investigation is completed.

“As legislators, our caucus insists that the approval to divert $418 million from the national treasure under such a hazy consent judgment and in the absence of a forensic audit smacks of an endorsement of corruption,” the caucus said. Our caucus urges President Buhari not to be misled or entangled in this nebulous enterprise, but rather to listen to the state governors and allow for an audit, focusing on the specifics of creditor claims and the circumstances surrounding the suspicious consent judgment.

“The minority caucus demands that the Attorney General and Minister of Justice use the audit to bring the processes and circumstances surrounding the judgment debt to the attention of the public.

Read Also:  Buhari administration plans to recruit 10,000 Nigerians to join the Nigerian Police Force

“The caucus believes the audit should reveal who was behind the consent judgment, the propriety of such measures, and why the governors’ objections were ignored.”