Shagaya sues Unity Bank, says accounts frozen
without court order
•Freeze: I have lost business goodwill, can’t pay
N514m debts on chartered aircraft, Shagaya tells
court •Unity Bank: Our hands are tied by the law.


The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) has frozen over N8, 627,458,773.36 billion in
three accounts of Hajiya Muinat Bola Shagaya, an
associate and friend of a former First Lady, Mrs.
Patience Jonathan.
Shagaya’s relationship with about 10 firms/account
names are also being investigated by the anti-graft
agency, The Nation learnt yesterday.
But Shagaya, who did not hold any public
appointment during the administration of ex-
President Goodluck Jonathan, has dragged Unity
Bank to the High Court of Lagos State for allowing
the EFCC to Post No Debit (PND) on her accounts
without a valid court order.
She says the action taken on her accounts violates
Section34 (1) of the EFCC Act, 2004.
Besides, the withdrawal ban placed on one of her
accounts has prevented her from defraying N514,
800,000 incurred as cumulative costs in the course
of an Aircraft Lease Agreement of a bombardier Jet,
according to documents which Shagaya filed and
deposed to at the Court alongside with her counsel,
Napoleon Emeaso-Nwachukwu.
Hearing of the matter is slated for September 28.
However, Unity Bank says its hands are tied by the
law in complying with the EFCC’s directives to
freeze Shagaya’s accounts.
The EFCC in a letter to the Unity Bank Managing
Director in respect of one of the frozen accounts
said: “The commission is investigating a case in
which the above-mentioned account featured.
“In view of the above, you are requested to kindly
check the table below and provide us with Certified
True Copies (CTC) of the following information,
which should include but not limited to the following:
(i) The deposit slips/telex copies (front and back)
that conveyed the authority of the transactions; (ii)
Any investment made with the funds in any of your
products which should include fixed/term deposit
and their liquidation and the interest incurred, Banks
Acceptance, Commercial Papers and any other
relevant information in relation to these.
The EFCC listed the transactions in the said account
as “N300m(Bola Shagaya RTGS); N300m
(Additional N300FTD at 15% TRAN); N500m (Time
Deposit); N2,317,013,698.64 (BNG COLLAOS FOR
FTD-CUSTOMER ACCOL); N2.3billion (Opening a
Time Deposit Account); N292, 495, 029.82
(Withdrawal from Time Deposit); N292, 495, 029.82
(TAK Asset Mgt Limited); N300m (Term Loan
booked for 356 days); and N2,025,455,015.08 (BNG
COLLAPS OF FTD Customer Account.”
In a separate letter Cr: 3000/EFCC/LS/STF/
STF3MP/ Vol.11/182 which Shagaya made
available to the court, the EFCC asked Unity Bank to
Post No Debit(PND) on 10 accounts linked with her.
The account names are (i) First Deep Water
Discovery Limited; (ii) Bola Shagaya; (iii) FAPLiNs
Nigeria Limited (iv) Lingo Nigeria Limited; (v) Buri
Barclays BDC; (vi) Links Global Synergy Ltd; (vii)
OKIOIL Nig. Ltd; (vii) JEMARVIZ Nig Ltd; (ix) PJ Oil
and Gas Ltd; and (x) AFDIN Ventures Ltd.
The anti-graft commission said: “The commission
is investigating a case in which the above
mentioned accounts featured.
“You are requested to kindly place the account on
Post No Debit (PND) category pending the
conclusion of the investigation.
“This request is made pursuant to Section 38(1)
and (2) of the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004 and Section
21 of Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011.”
In the third letter, the EFCC said it was looking into
two other accounts including Voyage Oil and Gas
and Bola Shagaya from 2008 to date.
It said: “The commission is investigating a case in
which the above mentioned accounts featured. In
view of the above, you are requested to kindly
provide us with Certified True Copies (CTC) of the
following information which should include but not
limited to the following: (i) The Mandate Card and
statement(s) of all domiciliary and Naira account(s)
in the above mentioned accounts from 2008 to date
with letter of certification in accordance with
Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011; (ii) any
investment made with the funds in any of your
products which should include fixed/term deposit
and their liquidation and the interest incurred, Bank
Acceptance, Commercial Papers and any other
relevant information related to these.
“You are further requested to kindly place the
account on Post No Debit (PND) category pending
the conclusion of investigation.”
But Shagaya accused Unity Bank of complicity on
her travails following the bank’s alleged failure to
exercise the requisite due diligence.
She said the freezing of her accounts did not
comply with Section 34(1) of the EFCC Act, 2004.
She specifically referred to the bank’s refusal to
allow her to make transactions on Account
000326118 including payment of N514, 800,000 to
Global Apex Air Limited, through Heavywind
Integrated Services, for the lease of a bombardier
Jet.
She said the Aircraft Lease Agreement between her
and Global Apex Air Limited has been terminated
with her forfeiting US$1million.
In an affidavit she deposed to, Shagaya said: “The
official of the Defendant (Unity Bank) whom my
Personal Assistant relayed the development to,
informed him that on the 3rd of November, 2016, the
Defendant received a letter from the EFCC through
their Lagos office informing it that my account with
it is under investigation and requested that the
account be put on “Post No Debit” pending the
outcome of the investigation hence the Defendant’s
inability to honour my payment instruction.
“Initially I laughed off the excuse as a ploy of the
Defendant to deter me from taking legal actions
against it for dishonouring my payment instructions
especially that of the 31st of October 2016 which
ultimately led to the termination of the Aircraft
Lease with Global Apex Air Ltd. And the loss of the
sum of One Million United States Dollars deposited
with the Lessor by me.
“On the 27th of January, 2017 the Defendant
responded to my Solicitor’s letter. In its response,
the defendant stated that: “it observed that long
before your client forwarded her cheques and
payment instruction to the Bank as indicated in your
letter under reference, the EFCC had formally
informed the Bank that an investigation relating to
your client’s account was ongoing and sought the
cooperation on the Bank accordingly.” The
Defendant’s letter ended by stating that “Based on
our understanding and the fact that the Bank was
already aware that the Law Enforcement Agency
had taken definite steps to comply with Section
34(1) of the EFCC Act, 2004, behoves the Bank not
to allow the dissipation or removal funds in your
client’s account without appropriate clearance from
the Law Enforcement Agency or a judicial order
directing the release of the funds to your client.”
“I will also contend at the hearing of this Suit that
the Defendant negligently and wrongfully failed to
exercise the requisite due diligence and by
extension, the duty of care it owed me as my
banker prior to complying with the alleged freezing
instruction from the EFCC.
“The Defendant did not request and ensure it was
obliged the Freezing Order from a court of
competent jurisdiction prior to complying with the
instruction to freeze the Claimant’s account
“The Defendant failed to honour the Claimant’s
payment instructions of the 31st of October 2016 as
well as those of the 1st and 2nd November 2016
which preceded the alleged instruction from the
EFCC.
“The Defendant failed to promptly notify the
Claimant of the freezing other account. The freezing
of the Claimant’s account did not comply with
Section 34(1) of the EFCC Act, 2004.
“Since the unlawful freezing of my account by the
Defendant, I have not been able to transact with that
account due to my inability to access same thereby
causing business losses and opportunities.
“By reason the Defendant’s action, I have suffered
loss of reputation and damages and my person
brought to disrepute, public opprobrium and odium.
“The actions of the Defendant which consist in
unlawfully freezing my account without an Order of
a Court of competent jurisdiction and failing to
disclose same to me promptly was unreasonable as
well as defamatory of me before my business
associates who now see me as a criminal and an
untrustworthy fellow who is in the habit of issuing
due cheques and payment instructions that she
knew would not be honoured.
She said she had lost a lot of business goodwill
since her accounts were frozen including
o The loss of $1,000,000 deposited with Global
Apex Air Ltd. Due to her in ability to pay accrued
costs in line with Aircraft Lease Agreement which
was occasioned by the failure of the Defendant to
oblige the Claimant’s payment instruction to
Heavywind Integrated Services.
o Loss of business opportunities and goodwill
occasioned by her inability to operate her account
domiciled with the Defendant due to its freezing.
o Loss of reputation occasioned by the
Defendant’s wrongful dishonouring of her payment
instructions to third parties.
“If not compelled by this Court, the Defendant will
not on its own volition unfreeze my account even
when it is glaring the Defendant had wrongfully
breached the duty of care it owes complying with an
illegal instruction in freezing my account.”
But in a letter to Shagaya’s counsel, Unity Bank
said it has a legal and ethical responsibility to
render assistance to law enforcement agencies.
The bank explained its constraints in a letter by its
Head, Legal Services Department, Mr. Alaba
Williams and Mr. Olusegun Olukoya of the same
department

The bank said: “While the Bank respects the
contractual nature of the relationship with your
client, it is without prejudice to the Bank’s standing
as a responsible law abiding Corporate Citizen.
“In spite of the Bank’s contractual relationship with
your client, that relationship is not without a legal
and ethical responsibility to render assistance to
law enforcement agencies when required of the
Bank.
“Considering the sensitive nature of the
investigation touching your client’s account as
advised by the EFCC in October 2016, the Bank had
to exercise caution in relation to further
transactions, especially debits, in the account of
your client under investigation.
“The need for the Bank to exercise due caution in
the matter of the operation of your client’s account
after receipt of notification of the ongoing
investigation by the EFCC was informed by our
understanding of various existing statutory
provisions relevant to the request of the EFCC
received by the Bank.
“Based on our understanding and the fact that the
Bank was already aware that the Law Enforcement
Agency had taken definite steps to comply with
section 34(1) the EFCC Act, 2004. It behoves the
Bank not to allow the dissipation or removal of the
funds in your client’s account under investigation,
before the Court Order seeking to preserve the
funds was obtained.

“The contractual relationship between your client
and the Bank does not permit us to pre-empt the
investigation by the Law Enforcement Agency and
the related Court Proceedings which outcome could
lead to forfeiture of the funds in the same account.
“The Bank could be considered an accessory after
the fact if it allowed the dissipation of the funds in
your client’s account without appropriate clearance
from the Law Enforcement Agency or a judicial
order directing the release of the funds to your
client.
“Therefore contrary to the allegation in your letter,
the Bank had a proper justification for refusing the
payment instructions from your client for funds to
be removed from her account in issue when there
was an ongoing investigation by the EFCC in respect
of the said funds. The Bank is therefore not in
breach of any contractual obligation to your client.
The Bank is also not liable to your client for the sum
of N700,000,000.00 (Seven Hundred Million Naira)
or any other sum that matter as damages claimed
by you.

“Please, note that Unity Bank Plc. is committed to
comply with the extant laws and Regulations of all
competent Authorities and Jurisdictions.
“In addition to adopting best practices; ethical and
legal considerations always guide our commercial
decisions protecting the good name and the
reputation of the bank remains the primary
consideration in all actions taken by the Bank.
Accordingly, the Bank protects its products and
services from being involved in allegation of
unlawful activities. Hence we will cooperate fully
with all Regulators and Law enforcement Agencies.
“We are of the humble opinion that your client
should kindly resolve any outstanding issues with
the Law Enforcement Agency and facilitate the
removal of the “Post No Debit” on her account with
the Bank.
“Litigation against the Bank will therefore not be
necessary in the circumstance.”

http://thenationonlineng.net/efcc-freezes-n8-6b-ex-first-ladys-friends-accounts/

PS: It is a long read; I couldn't space it.

She was a known crony of Patience Jonathan and must have definitely benefited from the reckless corruption that marred the seemingly human faced Jonathan govt..These were the people that derailed that govt

Here was I thinking I had such generous friends.

Who is investigating Hijiya Turai Yaradua, Hajiya Abdulsamali Abubakar, Hajiya Abacha, Late Haijiya Babangida, Hajiya Buhari, e.t.c., why must they now only investigate Patience Jonathan because she is SS, or rather an Igbo woman born and raised in Abia?

tigeress2011:
Who is investigating Hijiya Turai Yaradua, Hajiya Abdulsamali Abubakar, Hajiya Abacha, Late Haijiya Babangida, Hajiya Buhari, e.t.c., why must they now only investigate Patience Jonathan because she is SS, or rather an Igbo woman born and raised in Abia?

Why do people like you exist?

This is just so dumb of you.