₦airaland Forum

Social media noise is not the law. Let Pilce come and tell the Federal Judge their respective offences to warrant their continuous incaceration.

Never join the mob to crucify someone. The crowd might go free, and only you might be used to show example to the rest. They should claim billions against him.

Nonsense! Naira Marley and Co has been made to suffer for nothing by spending almost a year in Police custody. But the coroner inquest holding at Ikorodu is now revealing that Naira Marley was not directly or remotely related to Mo's death.

That is his mother and not his mother-in-law. Why ona dey lie too much?

Apparently he was raised by his mother and was having a dance with his mother on his wedding day.

chieni:
How long have you been on the platform?

I signed up before 2020 but wasn't regular due to physical engagement with a physical law practice in Nigeria. But due to economic reasons, one has to double his hustle. Hence, my focus is on Upwork now. Let's earn some greenback to support the NGN.

party is always allowed. Nice enjoyment. Na dey chop mother and daughter. No time/

chieni:
It also depends on your niche.

Mine is legal. Contract preparation, review, editing, legal advisement, litigation, etc.

Anything that involves lawyering .

Recently woke up my 2019 Upwork account with a paid membership after a long while. I am in the legal niche, and I am presently working on my project catalogue.

How do I create project images and project videos?

Thanks

nnatobryno:
Trash!!!... Read efcc act... Read CBN circular or regulations on that viz-a-vis BVN framework also read the Ts&Cs (in fine print) on the account opening form or Offer letter for loans, as the case maybe.

Don't dabble into matters you know nothing about.

Read the combined effect of Section 34 of the EFCC Act 2004, Section 6(5) (b) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2011 and Section 7(2)(a)-(f) of the EFCC Act (Supra).

See also the decision of the courts in NPG FARMS (NIG) LTD v. ZENITH BANK PLC (2022) LPELR-57548(CA); OLAGUNJU v. EFCC (2019) LPELR-4846 (CA); EFCC v. GLOBAL FORMWORK (NIG.) LTD & ORS (2020) LPELR-51398 (CA) and GTB v. ADEDAMOLA (2019) 5 NWLR PART 1664 PAGE 30 AT 43 PARAGRAPHS E-F, respectively.

You might also wish to go a step further and juxtapose the aforesaid positions of the law with Section 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

And if not satisfied, you might cap it up with the express provisions of Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, which aptly provides thus:

"The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws."

Let me know if you have more questions or wish to refer me to more materials that provide otherwise.

Shalom. I rise.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is a Nigerian anti-graft agency established with a goal to curb the spread of economic and financial crimes in the country. One of the EFCC's tools to prevent suspects from withdrawing funds from their bank accounts is the Post No Debit (PND) directive. This directive is placed on an account alleged to have been involved in financial crimes, and it prevents the account holder from making any debit transactions, including withdrawals. In this topic, we will discuss the timeframe within which the EFCC can place a PND on an alleged crime-involved account and the implications of non-compliance.

According to Section 34 of the EFCC Act of 2004, the EFCC can instruct a bank to place a PND on an account allegedly involved in criminal activity for 72 hours. During this time, the EFCC can conduct investigations without interference from the account holder. After the 72-hour period elapses, the EFCC can apply to a court to extend the PND duration.

In case of non-compliance with the EFCC directive, the bank risks facing severe sanctions and fines. Not only may the bank's reputation be damaged, but it may also suffer a loss of its operational license. It is, therefore, essential for banks to comply immediately with any EFCC directives for PND placements.

It's worth noting that the PND directive is limited to the specific account specified by the EFCC. The directive does not affect any other accounts, subsidiaries, or branches of the account holder. However, if the EFCC finds that multiple accounts are involved, it may issue a directive for each account separately.

If you find yourself in a situation where a PND has been placed on your account, it is advisable to consult with a legal representative as soon as possible. The law provides you with the right to challenge the PND placement and provide evidence to refute the allegations. However, it's important to work with a legal representative who is knowledgeable in banking and finance laws to ensure the best possible outcome.

The PND directive is a powerful tool in combating financial crimes, and as such, it's crucial that banks comply with any EFCC directives. Banks should always be diligent in their monitoring of clients' activities and report any suspicious activities to the EFCC as required. On the other hand, account holders should be aware of their legal rights and seek legal counsel to challenge wrongful PND placements. With everyone playing their role, we can help ensure a safer and more just financial system in Nigeria.


But what are the rights of the bank customer in the event that the PND restriction exceeds 72 hours without a court order extending it?


In the recent case of NPG FARMS (NIG) LTD v. ZENITH BANK PLC (2022) LPELR-57548(CA), the Court of Appeal was of the decision that a post no debit restriction that exceeds the legally allowed 72hrs without a court order extending same is illegal, ultra vires the provision of the law and more importantly, a fundamental breach of the customer's right.

But before you begin ask why the court go talk something like this, let's explore the facts that culminated in this case.

In this case, the Appellant, who was the Plaintiff/Applicant at the trial court, instituted an action against the Respondent at the trial Court via an originating motion alleging the violation of his right to enjoyment of its property as entrenched in Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

The Appellant sought a declaration that the posting of the Post No Debit (PND) on the Applicant's account with the Respondent bank without any valid or subsisting Order of Court to that effect amounts to a violation of the Applicant's right to enjoyment of its property as entrenched in Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act LFN 2004 amongst other declaratory reliefs and orders as well as general damages.

The Appellant lost the case at the trial court. But he won at the court of Appeal, which vacated the judgment of the trial court, entered judgment in his favour, and awarded the sum of 5 million naira as general damages and 250k as cost of action against the bank for illegally placing a continuing post no debit restriction on the Appellant's bank account without due process of law.


BluntCrazeMan,IconicR, Fergie001, lhordspy, Lotanna2, Racoon, LegendHero, Helinues,Dtruthspeaker.

What is the position of the Nigerian Courts on Post No Debit Restriction?


In the recent case of NPG FARMS (NIG) LTD v. ZENITH BANK PLC (2022) LPELR-57548(CA), the Court of Appeal was of the decision that a post no debit restriction that exceeds the legally allowed 72hrs without a court order extending same is illegal, ultra vires the provision of the law and more importantly, a fundamental breach of the customer's right.

But before you begin ask why the court go talk something like this, let's explore the facts that culminated in this case.

In this case, the Appellant, who was the Plaintiff/Applicant at the trial court, instituted an action against the Respondent at the trial Court via an originating motion alleging the violation of his right to enjoyment of its property as entrenched in Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

The Appellant sought a declaration that the posting of the Post No Debit (PND) on the Applicant's account with the Respondent bank without any valid or subsisting Order of Court to that effect amounts to a violation of the Applicant's right to enjoyment of its property as entrenched in Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act LFN 2004 amongst other declaratory reliefs and orders as well as general damages.

The Appellant lost the case at the trial court. But he won at the court of Appeal, which vacated the judgment of the trial court, entered judgment in his favour, and awarded the sum of 5 million naira as general damages and 250k as cost of action against the bank for illegally placing a continuing post no debit restriction on the Appellant's bank account without due process of law.

But what are the negative impacts on the bank customer whose bank account was illegally placed on Post No Debit Restriction?

Firstly, the illegal use of PND can hinder business operations and cause a loss of confidence in Nigeria's banking sector. When banks hold customer funds illegally, customers are unable to carry out transactions necessary for their businesses. This can stall crucial operations and lead to financial losses, which can ultimately damage the economy and cause job losses. Furthermore, the illegal use of PND can cause a lack of trust in the banking sector, which is crucial for the growth and development of the nation's economy. If customers are not confident in the banking system, it can lead to a reduction in investment, both by individuals and businesses.

Secondly, the illegal use of PND can have serious consequences for customers who are innocently caught up in this practice. Customers who have their accounts placed on PND illegally are often locked out of their own funds and forced to pay extra expenses to resolve the issue. These consequences can be detrimental, especially for low-income earners who may not have access to enough funds to meet such additional charges.

The third negative effect of the illegal use of PND is that it can lead to bank fraud and corruption. This practice is often encouraged by corrupt bank officials who use it as leverage to gain personal financial benefits. Banks can end up manipulating customers' accounts' legal procedures to hold their funds illegally or charge hidden fees. Such illegal practices can lead to bank fraud, compromise the integrity of the banking system, and ruin the confidence of the public in financial institutions.

Fourthly, the illegal use of PND can lead to an abuse of power by regulatory authorities. Regulators often place PND restrictions on accounts to prevent illicit financial activities and prevent capital flight. However, when these restrictions are applied illegally, they can lead to a breach of customers' fundamental human rights and financial freedom. Regulators can also abuse the power placed on them by the law to stop legitimate transactions from being carried out, which can lead to the automatic loss of customers' trust.

Post No Debit (PND) is a restriction placed on a bank account by regulatory authorities or account owners themselves to prevent unauthorized access or misuse of funds in the account.

This restriction is necessary in situations where fraudulent activities are suspected or when legal action is being taken to recover bad debts. However, in recent times, the illegal and indiscriminate use of PND has become a common practice among banks in Nigeria.

This practice is done primarily to 'hold' customer funds and force them to pay up outstanding debts or other related charges. In this discuss, we will explore the negative effects of such illegal use of PND on Nigerian banking and the public at large.

Majority of the Nigerian banks do not follow the due process of law or satisfy the regal requirement before placing a post-no debit restriction on a customer’s bank account.

But what are the consequences for not following due process of law, and what remedies are available to a customer who was unjustly denied access to funds in his bank account due to an illegal post-no debit restriction?

Folake4u