Cecilia Ibru Sues CBN,
Demands N50 billion Damages Posted to the web recently
The former managing director of Oceanic Bank International Plc, Cecilia
Ibru has dragged the Central Bank of Nigeria and its governor, Sanusi Lamido
Sanusi before a Federal High Court in Abuja over her compulsory removal from
office, demanding the sum of N50 billion for “exemplary, punitive and
aggravated and general damages.”
In an originating summons obtained by THISDAY last night, Ibru wants the
court to declare her removal from office invalid, null and void because she
was not afforded any fair hearing as contained in Section 36 of the 1999
Constitution.
In the suit filed by three Senior Advocates of Nigeria - Akin Olujinmi, Niyi
Akintola and Wale Akoni - the former CEO wants the court to determine
whether on a proper construction of Sections 33 and 35 of the Banks and
Other Financial Institution Act, 2004, Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004
and the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Oceanic Bank International
Plc, the CBN and its governor acted within jurisdiction in the manner she
was removed from office.
She also wants the court to determine whether in the absence of the special
examination properly ordered by the 1st defendant (Sanusi) into the books
and affairs of Oceanic and carried out pursuant to Section 33 of the BOFIA,
the 1st defendant could validly exercise the power conferred on him by
section 35 of BOFIA to remove her from office.
She also wants the court to determine whether the appointment of a new
managing director and chief executive officer for the bank was valid.
In the affidavit in support of her originating summons, the former Oceanic
Bank MD argued that as required by the 1st and 2nd defendants every year,
the bank filed audited accounts and that its 2008 account which they filed
early this year was approved and communicated to her in letter dated 14th
July, 2009.
She stated that the audited accounts were still pending with the two
defendants for approval when they sent a team of CBN/NDIC to carry out an
ad-hoc assignment in the bank, adding that the team carried out its ad-hoc
assignment and left without raising any queries or questions concerning the
books and affairs of the bank.
According to the embattled former MD, after the ad-hoc team finished its
assignments and left a letter conveying the approval of the 2008 audited
accounts of the bank was issued to the plaintiff.
She further averred that even though she asked from the 1st and 2nd
defendants for a copy of the report of the ad-hoc team on its assignment in
the bank, none was given to her, stating that she was therefore not able to
know the content of the report and was not given the opportunity to comment
on anything in the said report which may have been prejudicial to her.
According to her, the 1st and 2nd defendants did not at any time order a
special examination into the books and affairs of the bank and that that the
bank was still functioning normally and was meeting its obligations to its
depositors and creditors.
She further stated that on August 14, 2009 she was summoned to a meeting in
Lagos by the 1st defendant and that at the meeting she was not accused of
any wrongdoing neither was she asked anything in relation to the books and
affairs of the bank.
Moreover, she argued that the bank was founded by the Ibru family which is
the largest shareholder in the bank and that has done so much to grow the
bank.
She is therefore asking the court for, among others, a declaration that her
appointment as an officer and Managing Director/ Chief Executive Officer and
as a Director of Oceanic Bank International plc subsists.
