The Petro Union fraud case, scheduled for hearing yesterday, Monday, was disrupted due to an ongoing disagreement between two of the lawyers of Petro Union, Joe Kyari Gadzama (SAN) and Onyechi Egwuonwu, over how the proceeds of the fraud will be shared if their case eventually succeeds.
Before the Supreme Court Panel led by Justice Olukayode Ariwoola could attend to the case, the court’s first case for the day, it first had to understand the several court processes before it in the matter. After the lawyers for Petro Union, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Union Bank, Minister for Finance and the Attorney General of the Federation had announced their appearances, it turned out that the court could not proceed until the issue of which lawyers would represent Petro Union was resolved.
Onyechi Egwuonwu, Petro Union’s lawyer at the Federal High Court where the $15 billion judgment against CBN and others was given, informed the apex court of his irrevocable power of attorney to represent the company in the matter, explaining that it was he who, in fact, briefed Gadzama to lead him and other lawyers when the case got to the Court of Appeal.
He informed the court that he has a pending application to disqualify Gadzama from appearing in the case and to disbar him from practising as a legal practitioner due to unprofessional conduct.
Efforts by the Supreme Court justices and other senior lawyers in court to persuade Egwuonwu and Gadzama to resolve the issue of their fees amicably fell on deaf ears and the court had no option but to adjourn the application on sharing of proceeds between the lawyers to 22 November 2021.
Meanwhile, the pending applications of Union Bank in the matter have been scheduled for hearing at the Supreme Court on Monday, July 5, 2021.
Petro Union’s antics began in 1994 when the company allegedly procured a cheque from a branch of Barclays Bank in the UK with a value of £2.556 billion and presented it at one of Union Bank’s branches in Lagos, under the pretext that the oil company was meant to use the funds to construct three petrochemical refinery complexes in Nigeria and establish a bank in Nigeria. While the required due diligence investigations were being carried out, one Mr. Okpala, the Managing Director of Petro Union, allegedly inundated the Bank and the CBN with visits and demands for the release of the cheque.
Eventually, both the CBN and Union Bank advised Petro Union that Barclays Bank in the UK had been contacted and had subsequently confirmed that the cheque could not be given value because the company that purportedly issued the cheque dated December 29, 1994 (a company, known as Gazeaft Limited) did not exist on the Register of Companies in the UK. The response similarly affirmed that the account on which the cheque was drawn was closed on September 21, 1989, while the cheque was issued on December 29, 1994, – five years after the account was closed.
Despite the startling discovery and decisive response, Petro Union and Isaac Okpala persisted with their demands, culminating in a petition by the company to the Lagos office of the EFCC, for alleged offences of stealing and criminal conversion against the CBN and Union Bank. Following, the petition, the EFCC investigated the allegation by interrogating the CBN through a letter dated January 12, 2005. In a letter dated January 27, 2005, The CBN responded to the query by the EFCC wherein it denied the allegations of Petro Union. The EFCC also made other efforts to investigate the allegations including corresponding with Barclays Bank in the UK. Having concluded its investigation, the EFCC issued a letter dated May 10, 2005, addressed to the Managing Director of Union Bank, exonerating the bank from any wrongdoing.
However, in its desperation to use the allegedly forged cheque to perpetrate the fraud on CBN and Union Bank, Petro Union in February 2012 instituted an action at a Federal High Court, Abuja seeking sundry reliefs.
Source
