FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL

Posted On

12
August
2022

‘He’s Defending Private Concerns’: NGF Tackles Malami Over Paris Club Refund

The Nigeria Governors’ Forum has responded to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami over the controversy trailing the payment of consultancy fees amounting to $418 million from the Paris Club refund.

Speaking on Sunrise Daily, spokesperson of the NGF, Abdulrazaque Bello-Barkindo questioned why the AGF was so concerned about private claims to state funds.

In 2021, the governors had obtained an order from a federal high court in Abuja restraining the federal government from deducting the money from states’ accounts for the purpose of paying the disputed debt.

On Thursday, Mr Malami claimed the Governors had no basis for disputing the payments.

He said the consultants were hired by the Governors and that they had taken steps to pay before backtracking and taking the matter to court.

In his response, Bello-Barkindo said the Attorney-General should be more concerned about how the government can fund university education and not funnel money into private pockets.

“There is no component that compels the governors’ forum to pay consultants anything, and there is no agreement between the consultants collectively and governors collectively,” he said.

“The Paris fund money has been exhausted, and the consultants and the attorney general are expecting the money to be deducted from states’ accounts from sources over 52 or 58 months. That is unheard of.

“And what the NGF is saying is that there is no money to be paid and the monies that have been paid are gross errors.

“Where they are asking the monies to be gotten from is the biggest sacrilege. This money belongs to the states, the masses of this country and because you’re powerful, you want money to be taken and given to you.

“That’s why they are using the attorney general of the federation to get the money at the source because the state does not have any reason [to pay].

“What the attorney general is claiming that there is a consent judgement is what the NGF is saying did not exist.

“What the NGF is asking for is evidence of work done. Some of them said they have constructed primary health cares across the country, and other said they have provided boreholes, these are physical things that you can show.

“This matter is in court. The court is the only authority that can determine clearly whether there is a reason for payment or not, why are highly placed lawyers afraid of their own platform?”

RelatedPost

Related Blog post

UserComment

Valuable Users idea's
0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.