Malami Faults States’ Proposal To Form ‘Body of Attorneys-General of the Federation’.

The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami SAN has advised the AGs of respective states to perish the idea of establishing a new body known as ‘Body of Attorneys-General of the Federation’.

The AGF expressed his disapproval on Thursday during the opening session of the 3-day conference of the body of Attorneys-General Of States Of Nigeria, holding at the Continental Hotel, Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria.

Malami said the name runs contrary to Section 150(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which established his office as the only AGF.

He said, “I have also observed the misnomer in the proposed name of the new body which you seek to float, that is, BODY OF ATTORNEYS-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION. It is my considered view that this name conflicts with Section 150(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which established only one office of the Attorney General of the Federation.

“Therefore, while there can be a Body of Attorneys-General of the States of the Federation, a Body of Attorneys-General of the Federation is without legal justification. A platform under which the Chief Law Officers of the different States will operate should be duly clothed with legal or juristic personality. You may, therefore, wish to revisit your earlier resolution on this.”

Again, the AGF reacted to the controversial issue about the Paris/London Club loan deductions and refunds which has pitted the states against the federal government.

The AGF have always held the position that state governors were attempting to draw back on the terms of agreement reached with relevant stakeholders.

The refund ($418 million) are fees paid as legal and consultancy services to stakeholders who helped in fast tracking the Paris Club refund case.

But Malami maintained that the respective AGs and their governors should have adopted an out-of court settlement with the FG rather than opting for prolonged legal battle on an agreement they reached on behalf of their states.

He said:
“The present controversies surrounding the Paris/London Club loan refunds could have been avoided if NGF/State Governments and ALGON, who engaged the services of consultants and contractors, honoured their agreements. NGF and ALGON have not denied engaging the consultants and contractors on behalf of their respective States and Local Governments.

“The Four (4) judgments under consideration were delivered at various times in 2014, 2015, 2017 & 2019. Two of these judgments were Consent Judgments, based on Terms of Settlement entered into by NGF in 2017 & 2019. Again, two of the Four Judgments were based on an earlier judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in 2013. Yet from 2013 – 2021, neither the States nor NGF nor ALGON deemed it fit to either challenge, or fully comply, with any of these judgments. Yet I am being accused of hasty compliance with these judgments, when there is no appeal or order staying the execution of these judgments.

“Indeed, the Federal Government would have remained aloof, had the Judgment Creditors not obtained attachment orders against the funds and assets of the Central Bank of Nigeria. The States, NGF and ALGON provided no legal comfort for the Federal Government against the Judgment Creditors. Thus, the Federal Government did not act in vacuum, before the decision to comply with the existing judgments were taken.

“I wish to note that the NGF itself previously paid billions to the consultants, based on the same set of engagements and judgments. By various letters addressed to me and the Hon. Minister of Finance, both NGF and ALGON expressed no objection and recommended the same set of consultants for payment. It is to be noted that the present appeal before the Court of Appeal in APPEAL NO: CA/ABJ/CV/405/2022 is not even an appeal against any of the Four main judgments.

“Even though the contractors/consultants’ claims were tied to court judgments, I subjected the claims of the consultants/contractors to investigations by both the DSS and EFCC to further ascertain the veracity of the claims. Recommendations for payment were thus made based on the positive outcomes of these investigations. It is also worthy of note that the NGF who called for a forensic audit since February 2021, has not taken any step in that direction even though doing so will amount to instituting an administrative review of court judgments. A forensic audit or media war are not recognized means of challenging court judgments, or, staying their execution.

“It is important for me to point out that NGF undertook in 2019 to settle these judgment debts from their FAAC Allocations. The Federal Government acted on the Undertaking/Indemnity provided by NGF; more so, the Judgment Creditors also obtained orders of mandamus compelling FGN to issue the promissory notes.
NGF at various times in 2016 and 2018 received payments from the Federal Government under the guise of legal and consultancy fees related to the same Paris Club refunds. It will be most unfair, therefore, to state that the NGF did not act on behalf of the States in those circumstances.”