Justice Ibrahim Buba of a Federal High
Court in Lagos on Wednesday barred the Financial Reporting Council of
Nigeria from interfering with or impeding the normal operational
activities of Stanbic IBTC Holdings Plc and its subsidiaries.
The judge also restrained the council
from molesting or inviting the entire members of the board of directors
of the plaintiff for interrogation.
Buba made the interlocutory injunction
following arguments over an application to that effect by the
plaintiff’s counsel, Prof. Fidelis Oditah (SAN).
He said the plaintiff had made a case strong enough to warrant making an order for the maintenance of the status quo.
He said the order would subsist until
the determination of the plaintiff’s suit against the FRC and the
National Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion.
The suit followed the Monday suspension
of the Chairman of Stanbic IBTC Holdings, Mr. Atedo Peterside, and three
directors of the company, barring them from signing any financial
statement over allegations of improper disclosures in the bank’s
financial statement for 2013 and 2014 financial periods.
The FRC claimed that Stanbic IBTC
misrepresented its operational expenses by concealing important expenses
in its financial statement.
Also suspended were the Managing
Director/Chief Executive Officer, Stanbic IBTC, Mrs. Sola David-Borha,
Mr. Authur Oginga and Dr. Duru Owei.
But arguing the application on Wednesday, Oditah said the FRC had been acting in excess of its powers.
He said the suspension of the
plaintiff’s N18bn right issue by the Security and Exchange Commission,
on the instigation of FRC, had resulted in the fall of Stanbic IBTC’s
share price from N23 to less than N19 within a week.
The plaintiff asked the court to determine, among other things, whether FRC had the power to impose a fine of N1bn on it.
But counsel for the FRC, Chief Olusina
Sofola (SAN), urged the court to reject the plaintiff’s application,
saying the invitation of the plaintiff by the FRC had been overtaken by
events.
Sofola said, “The day of the meeting has
come and gone and they (plaintiff) did not attend. The heavens did not
fall. They have not said they are being invited to another meeting. The
meeting did not hold, so what is this court being asked to stop?
“As we speak now, they are carrying out
their business. The letter does not run afoul of the law. If they feel
we acted outside our powers, they should bring an application to
challenge our powers. I urge My Lord to dismiss their application.”
But in his ruling, Buba said the
plaintiff had established a case strong enough to warrant ordering the
parties to maintain the status quo.
“The whole essence of having a court of
law in any civilised society is to ensure that everything is done
according to the law and not otherwise. No court will stop a statutory
authority from performing its statutory duties.
“However, the court must emphatically
add that where it is alleged that a statutory authority is acting ultra
vires its statutory powers, the courts have powers and are imbued with
jurisdiction to enquire into whether it is true or false,” Buba held.
Further proceedings have been adjourned till November 6, 2015.
Post a Comment