This case revolves around a loan dispute that has escalated into a jurisdictional conflict between the judiciary and the legislature in Nigeria. Sterling Bank and its associated entities, along with key executives, have secured an interim injunction from the Federal High Court in Lagos against the House of Representatives and its Public Petitions Committee Chairman, effectively halting an investigation into the bank concerning a $17,079,000 loan. The core issue stems from a vessel lease facility granted in 2009 to Dr. Innocent Brendan Usoro and Miden Systems Limited, which subsequently defaulted, sparking protracted legal battles.
The crux of the plaintiffs’ argument hinges on the principle of sub judice, asserting that the legislative inquiry parallels ongoing court proceedings, thereby potentially prejudicing the case. They contend that Usoro and Miden Systems, after defaulting on the loan and facing legal action, lodged petitions with the National Assembly, alleging unlawful deductions and money laundering against the bank. This maneuver, according to the plaintiffs, represents an attempt to circumvent the judicial process and exert undue pressure through a parallel legislative investigation. The interim injunction serves as a temporary shield against this perceived overreach, safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process.
The $17,079,000 loan, initially structured with a 48-month repayment period including a six-month moratorium, became a source of contention when the borrowers, Dr. Usoro and Miden Systems, allegedly failed to meet their obligations. This triggered legal action by Sterling Bank to recover the outstanding debt. The plaintiffs argue that the subsequent petitions to the National Assembly represent a deliberate attempt to use the legislative arm of government to interfere with an ongoing judicial process. They maintain that such interference undermines the rule of law and could prejudice the outcome of the legal dispute.
The plaintiffs’ affidavit details the sequence of events, emphasizing the existence of prior court proceedings related to the loan default. They point to the invitation by the House Committee on Public Petitions, scheduling their appearance for February 5, 2025, despite the ongoing litigation, as further evidence of the defendants’ intention to circumvent the judicial process. This action, according to the plaintiffs, constitutes an unwarranted intrusion into a matter already under judicial consideration. The affidavit underscores the potential for conflicting decisions and the erosion of judicial authority if parallel investigations are allowed to proceed.
The interim injunction granted by Justice Daniel Osiagor serves as a temporary measure to maintain the status quo until the court can fully consider the arguments presented in the Motion on Notice for an interlocutory injunction. This motion seeks a more permanent restraint on the House of Representatives and its committee from pursuing their investigation. The court’s decision to grant the interim injunction signals a recognition of the potential for conflict between the legislature and the judiciary and underscores the importance of respecting the principle of sub judice. The adjournment to February 21, 2025, provides the court with the necessary time to thoroughly evaluate the legal arguments and determine whether a more permanent injunction is warranted.
This case highlights the delicate balance between the roles of different branches of government. While the legislature has a legitimate role in overseeing the activities of financial institutions and addressing public petitions, the judiciary retains the primary responsibility for resolving legal disputes. The interim injunction serves as a cautionary measure, reminding all parties involved of the importance of respecting the boundaries of their respective powers and upholding the principle of sub judice to ensure the integrity of the judicial process. The forthcoming hearing on the Motion on Notice will provide a crucial opportunity for the court to clarify the legal parameters of this dispute and establish a clear path forward.
