Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister for Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, has absolved the present administration from any blame on deductions from states funds arising from Paris Club refund to settle consultants.
Under the previous administration states shared the sum of $418m Paris Club in form of loan to assist them to get over some of their financial problems.
According to the AGF, state Governors had no basis to complain about deductions from the Paris Club refund paid to the consultants they hired.
Malami, during a ministerial briefing in Abuja, on Thursday, explained that the Governors created the liability which payment they had also indemnified.
Addressing the controversy caused by the recent deductions made from the refund, the Minister affirmed that when the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) made a request for the refund, one of the components was the settlement of the consultants who were engaged by the forum.
Malami recalled that when the Paris Club refund was paid to the states, the governors initially made part payment to the Consultants, but later decided to stop payment, which led to Court case and they asked for an out-of-court settlement.
The Minister said this resulted in request to the President to make the payment to the Consultants, a request he said, was then passed on to the Office of the AGF for legal opinion.
Malami noted that after being subjected to necessary checks, it was found out that there was no element of fraud involved
“The President passed all the requests of the governors to the Office of the Attorney General for consideration.
“I suggested to the President on the face value of the judgment and the undertones associated with the consultancy services, it was my opinion, the same treatment we metted to P&ID, that let us subject this claim, the consent judgment to investigation by the agencies of the government.
“Mr President approved. I directed the EFCC and DSS to look into these claims and report back to the office of the Attorney General.
“And these agencies reported and concluded that there are no problem undertones associated with it. The government may continue to sanction the payment dependent. Now, that was the background.
“Even at that, we took further steps after receiving these reports from the EFCC among others, to demand for indemnity from the governors.
“You, as a forum, you incurred this liability, you submitted to consent judgment; we have subjected these claims to investigation and we have a report.
“But even at that, we need independent indemnity from you, establishing that it is with your consent and understanding that these payments should be made, in writing.
“And I’m happy to report to you that the governors individually and collectively provided the desired indemnity to the Office of the Attorney General, conceding, agreeing and submitting, that the payment should be made.
“Yes, and that was the ground and the basis on which we eventually took a decision by advising the President that the payment should be made.
“And then along the line, there was a change of leadership of the Governors Forum.
“And all the noise making that is now being generated arising from the Governors Forum is not only unjustified, but indeed, a clear case of absence of defense.”
“But one other point of interest you may wish to note, is the fact that the new leadership of the Governors Forum instituted an action, even when the federal government was indeed acting on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
“They now embarked on a fresh legal suit, challenging the payment, challenging the previous agreement, challenging the indeminity and the court dismissed the application. Their case was dismissed by the Federal High Court.
“So, that is the foundation and I’m happy to report one, that the judgment and contention was a judgment that was obtained long before the Attorney General, Abubakar Malami came into office, long before the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari came into office.
“It was a product of their own doing and they had it submitted to judicial proceeding, judgment was entered against them.
“They have committed to the payment of the money, they have on their own indeed effected part payment. I closed my case and I will not like to answer any further question on that.”
