Lawyer drags FG to court over CRF, TSA

A senior maritime lawyer, Mr. Mike
Igbokwe (SAN), has filed a suit at
the Federal High Court in Lagos
challenging the powers of the
Federal Government to direct the
Nigerian Maritime Administration
and Safety Agency (NIMASA),
Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) and
the National Inland Waterways
Authority (NIWA) to pay the
internally generated revenue
accruing to them or funds
statutorily-provided for into the
Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF)
at the Central Bank of Nigeria
(CBN). He is also challenging the
directive for such agencies to close
all their revenue accounts in
different deposit money banks
(DMBs) across the country and
beyond and to transfer same into
the Treasury Single Account (TSA)
on or before February 28, 2015.

Acting on behalf of an indigenous
shipping company, Elshcon Nigeria
Limited, Igbokwe said the directive,
which was issued by the Minister of
Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala,
to all government agencies should
have excluded NIMASA, NPA and
NIWA in line with their enabling
laws.

The suit number FHC/L/CS/201/15,
brought before Justice Ibrahim
Buba, has the Attorney-General of
the Federation, the Account-General
of the Federation and the Minster
of Finance as defendants.

Igbokwe said the plaintiff had
applied ex-parte to the Federal High
Court, Lagos, for an order
restraining the 1st Defendant either
by himself or through his agents or
servants or privies or assignees or
successors-in-interest or through
any company, maritime agency or
Ministry whatsoever claiming
through, acting for or under or
deriving authority from him or the
Federal Government of Nigeria or
otherwise howsoever from
implementing or continuing to
implement the directives by the 1st
and 2nd Defendants to Ministries,
Departments and Agencies (MDAs)
to pay internally generated revenue
accruing to them or funds
statutorily-provided for into the
Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF)
at the Central Bank of Nigeria and
to close all their revenue accounts
in different deposit money banks
across the country and beyond and
to transfer same into the Treasury
Single Account (TSA) on or before
February 28, 2015.

According to him, the directives
relate to or concern revenue or
other monies payable under the
Constitution and the Acts of the
National Assembly into other public
funds established for specific
purposes including the statutory
revenue accruing to the Cabotage
Vessel Financing Fund (CVFF), the
statutory financial allocations to the
Maritime Fund and to the Maritime
Academy of Nigeria collected, kept
and administered by Nigerian
Maritime Administration and Safety
Agency. They include funds
maintained and general reserve
funds established and maintained
by Nigerian Ports Authority and the
funds established for its running
expenses by National Inland
Waterways Authority, pending the
hearing and determination of the
Motion on Notice for interlocutory
injunction filed by the plaintiff/
applicant.

The plaintiff is seeking six reliefs,
which include an order directing
the defendants to stop forthwith,
the implementation or further
implementation of or compliance or
further compliance with the
directives.

Justice Buba had consequently
directed that the plaintiff should
serve the defendants with the
Motion on Notice for interlocutory
injunction and Originating
Summons. It also granted an
accelerated hearing of both the
Motion on Notice and the
Originating Summons and
adjourned the case to Thursday,
March 5, 2015.

The Senior Advocate of Nigeria said
he had written to NIMASA, NPA and
NIWA advising them not to take any
action or do anything with respect
to or in furtherance of the
implementation of or compliance
with, the Federal Government
directives pending the
determination of the matter by the
court so as not to “stifle or have the
potential effect of stifling the
exercise by the court of its
undoubted jurisdiction on our
client’s pending Motion on Notice
for interlocutory injunction and
Originating Summons thereby
destroying the subject-matter of the
litigation before the Motion on
Notice and Originating Summons
are heard and determined as such
would amount to an abuse of court
process and acts that courts frown
at and that our client would be
compelled to move the court to set
aside.”