Television Nigerian

The Coalition of Human Rights Monitoring Groups (CHRMG) has condemned the Nigeria Labour Congress’s (NLC) planned protest against the 50% telecom tariff increase, describing it as “misguided and not in the public interest.”

The CSOs said the tariff hike, approved by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), is a necessary measure to prevent the telecom sector from collapsing.

According to Dr. Gabriel Agibi, President of the group, with the current inflation rate at 34.8%, a nearly 300% increase from 8.5% in 2013, the tariff adjustment is essential to reflect economic realities.

Agibi said the NCC’s decision was made in good faith, taking into account ongoing industry reforms that will positively influence sustainability.

He added that the tariff hike is also crucial in ensuring that Nigeria’s telecom sector remains competitive with international standards.

“The last telecom tariff increase was in 2013 when Nigeria’s inflation rate was 8.5%. However, with the current inflation rate at 34.8%, a nearly 300% increase, the tariff adjustment is essential to reflect economic realities,” Agabi said.

“The NCC’s decision was made in good faith, taking into account ongoing industry reforms that will positively influence sustainability. The increase will remain within the tariff bands stipulated in the 2013 NCC Cost Study, ensuring that it does not unduly burden consumers.

“The tariff hike is also crucial in ensuring that Nigeria’s telecom sector remains competitive with international standards. Compared to other countries, Nigeria’s telecom tariffs are relatively low.

“For instance, in South Africa, the average cost of 1GB of data is around ₦1,200, while in Ghana, it is around ₦1,500. In Nigeria, the average cost of 1GB of data is around ₦500. The tariff hike will help to bridge this gap and ensure that telecom operators can invest in infrastructure and provide quality services to consumers.

“The tariff hike is also essential for the Nigerian government’s digital economy agenda, which aims to leverage technology to drive economic growth and development.

“With increased revenue from tariffs, telecom operators will be able to invest in expanding their networks, improving internet speeds, and developing new digital services, ultimately supporting the government’s efforts to create a more digital and connected society.”

Read Also: 2027: Coalition Dismisses PDP, Scouts for Presidential Candidate Among Obi, Atiku, El-Rufai, Others

The Coalition commended President Tinubu’s administration for its efforts to reform the telecom sector, ensuring its sustainability and growth.

Agabi said the President’s commitment to creating a conducive business environment is laudable, and the coalition believes that this tariff adjustment is a step in the right direction.

However, the Coalition of Human Rights Monitoring Groups urged the NLC to reconsider its stance and engage in constructive dialogue with the NCC and other stakeholders.

“We warn the NLC that its actions may have unintended consequences, including harming the very people it claims to represent,” Dr. Agibi said.

“We urge the NLC to prioritize the interests of Nigerian workers and citizens by supporting policies that promote economic growth and development.”

The coalition urged Nigerians to look beyond the short-term pains of the tariff hike and consider the long-term benefits it will bring to the telecom sector and the economy as a whole.

According to Agabi, a stronger and more sustainable telecom sector will create jobs, stimulate economic growth, and improve the overall quality of life for Nigerians.

Mareva orders that froze $225.8 million in assets and accounts connected to General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL), its affiliates, and well-known people, including media tycoon Nduka Obaigbena, were overturned by a Federal High Court on Wednesday.

After GHL’s legal team filed a motion on notice against First Bank of Nigeria Limited and FBN Quest Trustees Limited, Justice D.I. Dipeolu rendered the decision.

According to earlier reports, the court’s earlier interim ruling came in response to claims that First Bank owed $225.8 million in unpaid loans.
Nduka Obaigbena is the owner of the oil and gas company General Hydrocarbons.

The business is identified as the operator of Nigeria’s oil-producing block, OML 120.

Initially, the court ordered all of Nigeria’s largest commercial banks and financial institutions to freeze the defendants’ accounts and prevent them from accessing assets or money up to the claim amount while additional legal action was taken.
Motion Filed by GHL

According to reports, banks like GTBank, Access Bank, Zenith Bank, and First Bank, as well as fintech companies like Flutterwave, Paystack, and Piggyvest, were prohibited from disbursing money or managing assets connected to the defendants by the interim injunctions.
In addition to corporate firms like GHL 121 Ltd, CESL Oyo Production, and other businesses connected to the oil block operations, these accounts were linked to important persons like Efe Damilola Obaigbena and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena.
Part of the court order says:

“An order of Mareva injunction restraining all commercial banks in Nigeria, including Guaranty Trust Bank Limited, Access Bank Plc, Citibank Nigeria Limited, Carbon Bank, Ecobank Nigeria Plc, Fidelity Bank Plc, First Bank of Nigeria Limited, First City Monument Bank Plc, Flutterwave, Globus Bank, Heritage Bank Limited, Jaiz Bank, Keystone Bank Limited, Opay Digital Services Limited, PalmPay Limited, Paystack Payments Limited, Piggyvest, Momo Payment Service Bank Limited, Polaris Bank Limited, Providus Bank, Stanbic IBTC Bank Nigeria Limited, Standard Chartered Bank, Sterling Bank Plc, SunTrust Bank Limited, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, United Bank for Africa Plc, Unity Bank Plc, Wema Bank Plc, Zenith Bank Plc, and all other financial institutions operating in Nigeria, from releasing or dealing with any funds or assets due to the GHL up to the sum of $225,802,379.69, being the outstanding indebtedness on the GHL’s account with First Bank as of 30 September 2024 in respect of the loan facilities granted to GHL by First Bank pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for an interlocutory injunction.”

Ebun Awosika, the attorney for GHL, challenged the orders in a move on notice after this decision.
Among other things, GHL asked the court to decide whether First Bank has the right to receive all funds held by commercial banks and fintech companies that are credited to GHL’s First Bank account (No. 2041158591) until the loan facilities are completely repaid.
Additionally, GHL said that First Bank was prohibited from “making any calls” or “taking any steps” against it until the arbitration proceedings were concluded by the Federal High Court’s current decisions, which were delivered by Justice Allagoa on December 12, 2024.
In addition, GHL urged the court to declare this an abuse of court procedure, accusing FBN of willfully neglecting to alert Justice Dipeolu about the court order dated December 12.
The Court’s Remarks
In his January 29 ruling on the motion, Justice Dipeolu said that the arbitration proceedings between GHL and First Bank, which were started in accordance with Clause 12(c) of the Agreement between GHL and FBN dated May 29, 2021, were the focus of the interim orders issued by Justice Allagoa.
However, the judge pointed out that First Bank’s lawsuit in his court had to do with the bank’s credit letters.
The judge said, “The share structure, the Deed of All Assets Debenture, the Deed of Assignment of Insurances, the Amendment and Restatement Deed of Assignment of Contracts and Receivables, the Deed of Account Charge, and the Amendment and Restatement Deed of Account Charge are the main issues in this suit.”

Read Also: How EFCC Stopped Yahaya Bello’s Ally from Buying N550m Property

He added that FBN was prohibited by Justice Allagoa’s second order from:

Making any phone calls or requests,
Taking any action to enforce any assets, financial records, receivables, instruments, or security that the applicant had pledged as collateral for the OML 120 facility agreements,
Enforcing the respondent’s and applicant’s revised or restated agreements, the side letter,
acting in any way while the arbitration between the applicant and the respondent is being heard and decided in accordance with Clause 12(c) of the Agreement of May 29, 2021.
Given these facts, the judge decided that First Bank was prohibited from calling, requesting, or acting in any way related to GHL’s operation of OML 120 until the arbitration was over.

Additionally, he clarified that First Bank’s suit was not an abuse of court process as GHL alleged, even if the court’s interim orders on December 30, 2024, were connected to a different facility arrangement between FBN and GHL that did not apply to the receivables in the May 29, 2021 agreement.
However, the judge decided that the Mareva ruling made on December 30, 2024, was overturned in light of Justice Allagoa’s directives issued on December 12, 2024.
The judge also pointed out that First Bank had neglected to include the preservation court orders that required the parties to follow arbitration procedures in its affidavit supporting its ex parte motion.
The judge said, “The plaintiff (FBN) should have attached the preservative order, even though the plaintiff disclosed that GHL obtained preservative orders to abide by the resolution of the dispute submitted to arbitration.”

In spite of this, the court rejected GHL’s jurisdictional defense and upheld its legal authority to issue the interim Mareva directives on December 30, 2024.

“The Defendant/Applicant’s Motion on Notice dated January 13, 2025, is successful based on everything I’ve found thus far. The court decided to set aside the Mareva Order of December 30, 2024.

Furthermore, Obaigbena and other defendants’ move to have First Bank’s claim dismissed or struck out for lack of jurisdiction or abuse of court process was overruled by the court.

In accordance with the court’s stance on the GHL’s request, the Mareva orders are set aside, however the court emphasized that the FBN motion was not a misuse of the legal system.

In order to give all parties time to reply to the substantive suit, the case has now been postponed until February 19, 2025.

What Comes Next?
According to sources, more hearings on this matter will decide its final outcome, which could have implications for Nigeria’s financial services industry.
The case’s verdict may have a significant impact on the impacted businesses’ financial soundness and corporate governance.

Fabian Nwaora, the chairman of EFAB Property Limited, based in Abuja, has disclosed how Shehu Bello, a purported accomplice of former Kogi governor Yahaya Bello, canceled the purchase of a property worth N550 million that he had already paid for after discovering that the former governor was being investigated by the EFCC.

On Wednesday, Nwaora appeared before Federal Capital Territory High Court Judge Maryanne Anenih as the First Prosecution Witness (PW1) in the Yahaya Bello trial, along with Abdulsalami and Umar Shuaibu Oricha.

The witness revealed that the address of the property Shehu Bello purchased was No. 1 Ikogosi Street, Maitama, Abuja.

“We put up a property for sale with a signboard of EFAB Property,” Nwaora stated, leading prosecution attorney Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, in testimony. That was in 2020. When Shehu Bello arrived in my office, he requested the property.

After talking it over, we decided on N550 million. I informed him that I would not be there on the day he stated he would return, and I then presented him to Segun Adeleke, my General Manager (GM).

Both of them traded phone numbers. After a week, I returned, and the general manager informed me that Shehu Bello had bought the property. For me to view on behalf of EFAB, he brought the paperwork.

The deal was signed by Dr. Bello Ohiani, not Shehu Bello. No copy was returned after we signed and gave it to them to sign and return.

Shehu Bello returned all of the documentation I gave him, stated he wanted his money back, and informed me that the property was being investigated by the EFCC after three years. “They know the EFCC will invite us because it was under investigation,” my lawyer remarked when I brought it up to him.

As the property was being investigated, the witness also told the court that the EFCC had invited them to testify and that his firm, EFAB Property Limited, had been instructed by the Commission to transfer the funds it got for the property to the EFCC’s account.

“The EFCC claimed the residence was being investigated after we wrote the statement, and we should return all of the money to the EFCC account. We returned N400 million once they provided us with the account number, and we returned N150 million for the second batch. Although the house was tagged, the EFCC stated we may take possession of it when we gave them the money back, he claimed.

Prosecution counsel presented the sales agreement and deed of assignment on the property to the court, and they were allowed into evidence as Exhibits A1 and A2.

Read Also: Hilda Dokubo Rejects Offer to Join Obidient Movement Advisory Council

The defense attorney’s application to obtain the second and third defendants’ extrajudicial statements and to have the case postponed was denied by the court early in the proceedings.

Prosecution counsel objected to the application, telling the court that the defense counsel had been properly served with the statements on November 27, 2024. The court was adjourned until today, January 29 and 30, 2025, to hear the bail issue and not the application for the defendants’ extrajudicial statements.

Last November 27th, the defense was served. My lord postponed the case to today and tomorrow, back to December 19, 2024, due to the bail application difficulty,” he stated.

The defense application was dismissed by the judge, who was convinced by the prosecution’s reasoning and declared that the trial should proceed, characterizing it as an attempt to postpone the court proceedings.

In order to allow for a trial to continue, Justice Anenih ultimately postponed the case until April 3 and 24 and May 6, 2025.

Oricha, Hudu, and Yahaya Bello are on trial for a 16-count indictment that includes money laundering and criminal breach of trust totaling N110.4 billion.