Wonder Banks: Conflicting Legal Representation Halts N23.7bn Investors Trapped Funds’ Case

The Supreme Court has expressed readiness to expedite action in the N23.7bn civil case, in which over 14,296 hapless investors’ funds are trapped in the Central Bank of Nigerian (CBN), if the chambers of Debo Adeleke and Rowland Otaru, (SAN) resolve the issue of legal representation of the parties in the suit.

The apex court consisting of a five-man panel and presided over by Justice Mary Ukego Peter-Odili, while adjourning further hearing till October 31, told parties in the suit to reconcile the conflicting issue of their legal representation.

“I think it is important to let your clients know that this adjournment is not at the instance of the court. It is as a result of inability of counsel on either side to reconcile their representation. We are here; we are ready to work”, the apex court ruled.

The court also observed that, it had earlier ordered for the conflicting counsel to resolve who is a proper representative of the parties.

The investors, most of who are aged and pensioners, led by Prince Emmanuel Matiluko, between 2004 and 2005, had unwittingly subscribed to a fraudulent investment scheme put up by Nospetco Oil & Gas Ltd, each with N450,000 slot.

It was when the Federal Government listed Nospetco Oil & Gas Ltd amongst 48 companies as Wonder Banks, following the judgement of the Investment and Security Tribunal in OA/17/07, the truth of their being victims of Nospetco’ scam dawned on them.

At the resumed hearing of the case last week in Abuja, when Mr. Debo Adeleke announced his appearance for 1st, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th investors in representative capacity of 13,737 other investors, Mr. C. W. Udeh from the chambers of Rowland Otaru, (SAN) announced appearance for 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th in representative capacity of 13,737 other investors.

Adeleke urged the court to resolve the issue of representation, adding that he emphatically announced that the 10 people he is appearing for, are doing so in a representative capacity of 13,737 other investors.

According to Adeleke, these are the investors who started the matter right from the Investment and Security Tribunal (IST).

“Our position can equally be supported by the records before the court. By all the representation, since the commencement of this matter at the Supreme Court, we have been announcing our representation of 13,737.

"However, somebody who has never been a party to this matter in the name of Rowland Otaru, (SAN) suddenly appeared at the Supreme Court, announcing various types of figures of people he claimed to be representing. That will not be justice”, he submitted.

Reacting, Udeh observed that it was true that on November 22, 2016 the court ordered that both counsel should meet and resolve the conflicting issue of legal representation.

“My lord, nothing could go on in this court on that day, except the same issue of legal representation”, he submitted, noting that his chambers is not averse to settlement or reconciliation.

But the apex court observed that the issue of changing counsel goes beyond settlement, and asked Udeh to produce evidence of instruction from the people he claimed to be representing.

“The people you claim to be representing, are they alive? And they are available to give you instruction as to representing them? Where is the evidence of instruction that you should represent them?"

In his reply, Udeh told the court that he had a letter debriefing Adeleke, and had also filed a motion before the court dated April 20, 2015, on the same issue of legal representation.

He added that the names of the investors who briefed his chambers, were clearly written in the motion.

“They are claiming that we have jumped into this matter without due authorisation. But my lords, we came into this matter, having been briefed", he said.

The court intervened, observing that the normal practice is that, if a client does not want the services of a counsel, he has the legal right to engage another, but must first debrief the counsel he was using before, with a written letter.

“Now, did you find out that they have debriefed the person handling their case, and whether they settled that person’s legal fees and the rest of it? Had all these things been done before you took over?", the court asked.

Udeh replied in the positive, and added that his chambers even wrote Adeleke to that effect, and showed the court a copy of the letter.

Adeleke however denied receiving any such letter, when the court asked for confirmation.

“No sir, I’m not aware of any such letter, my lord. In actual fact, as a way of elucidating the matter, when we announced initially we were for all the investors, the then Central Bank lawyer, then stood up and said, it was not proper for us to represent all investors because they heard there were about 200 other investors.

“On the basis of this, the court directed that Mr. Adeleke should go and advertise in three major newspapers to ascertain the numerical strength of the people he is representing.

“As at that time, we advertised in Punch, Daily Trust and The Guardian, in accordance with the order of the Tribunal. It was on the basis of this we now collated 13,740, but this is at the court of IST instance and Court of Appeal.

"But while the matter was going on, my lords, during the process of collation, four of the investors, who are former members of Executive misappropriated some funds, hence, they were dismissed.

"These four are those that formed the dissident group, now engaged the services of Rowland Otaru (SAN) to represent them at the Supreme Court”, Adeleke submitted.

He added that there was no such thing as a letter of debriefing from his clients, stressing, “It is this four dismissed people that are doing that, not all the investors.

The apex court however, faulted the construction of the letter purportedly debriefing Adeleke, which was tendered by Udeh during the proceeding, saying that it does not look too strong enough.

Udeh however pointed out that his chambers took some steps for settlement, “We took further steps after receiving that letter, we sent a letter to Mr. Adeleke dated 11th July 2014, in which we informed that he has been debriefed and that he was welcome to work with us as a team".