A political party, Action Peoples Party, APP, has approached a federal high court sitting in Abuja, for an order to set aside the approval for any external borrowing made by National Assembly.
In the last two months, the presidency had sought the approval of the National Assembly to borrow money from external sources.
All the loans requests by the Presidency were approved by the National Assembly.
Since the beginning of the year, the federal government has borrowed over $28billion as loan from external sources.
The 1st to 5th defendants in the matter include the Federal Government of Nigeria, President Mohammadu Buhari, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance.
In the suit before Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the court, with suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/365/2020, the plaintiff, through their lawyer, Mr. Chibuzor Ezike, prayed the court for the determination of seven issues in the matter.
The plaintiff also prayed the court for an order setting aside and/or nullifying the request for external loan made by the President for failure to specify the cost-benefits implications.
It also failed to indicate the economic and social benefits to which the borrowing is intended to be applied.
It further cited the lack of viability/feasibility test on the sustainability of the borrowing and provide financial, loan repayment projections.
The plaitiffs also allege that the application of these loans are lopsided and in breach of federal character principle.
In an affidavit in support of the originating summons, deposed to by Uchenna Nnadi, the Deputy National Chairman of the party, the plaintiff said that by a letter sent to the National Assembly, the President requested the approval of the sum of $22.7 billion.
He said the said borrowing was purportedly tied to infrastructure, and other projects by the President.
According to him, similar request by the President three years ago was flatly rejected by the National Assembly as it did not meet the mandatory detailing required for the parliamentary debate.
Some of the issues for determination are:
*Whether by the provisions of Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, and 27 of the Debt Management Office (Establishment) Act, the 1st and 2nd Defendants while acting in concert with the 3rd and 4th Defendants can undertake any external loan or borrowing on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria without adhering to the national borrowing programme for the succeeding year’s financial year as may be presented before and duly approved by the 5th Defendant?
*Whether in view of the express provisions of Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, and 27 of the Debt Management Office (Establishment) Act, it is not unconstitutional, unlawful and ultra vires the executive powers of the 2nd Defendant to undertake to borrow external loans or participate in the negotiation and acquisition of any external loan without the proper legislative framework and approval of the 5th Defendant in an openly debated, considered and deliberated session of the parliament, where the details of such external borrowing, project financing and projected repayment modalities will be openly debated and considered by the legislature.
*Whether having regard to Sections 44 and 48 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, the action of the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants in undertaking to borrow external loans or participating in the negotiation and acquisition of any external loan without complying with the mandatory provisions of the law with regards to the specification of the cost-benefits, the economic and social benefits to which the borrowing is intended to be applied, viability/feasibility test on the sustainability of the borrowing and project financial as well as loan repayment projections is not unlawful, and contrary to the intendment of the law.
The Plaintiff alao prayed the court to grant the following reliefs:
*A DECLARATION that having regard to the provisions of Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, and 27 of the Debt Management Office :Establishment) Act, the 1st and 2nd Defendants while acting in concert with the 3rd and 4th Defendants cannot undertake any external loan or borrowing on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria without adhering to the national borrowing programme for the succeeding year’s financial year as may be presented before and duly approved by the 5th Defendant.
*A DECLARATION that it is unconstitutional, unlawful and ultra vires the executive powers of the 2nd Defendant to undertake to borrow external loans or participate in the negotiation and acquisition of any external loan without the proper legislative framework and approval of the 5th Defendant in an openly debated, considered and deliberated session of the parliament, where the details of such external borrowing, project financing and projected repayment modalities will be openly debated and considered by the legislature.
*A DECLARATION that it is unlawful and unconstitutional for the 4th Defendant to offer or undertake any guarantee for the requested external loans made by the 2nd Defendant when the terms and conditions of the said loan have not been duly laid before, considered and approved by the 5th Defendant as mandatorily stipulated under the law.
When the case came up yesterday, counsel to the plaintiff, begged the court to adjourn the case to July 1, 2020 to enable him effect service on the defendants.
According to him, the COVID 19 pandemic made it impossible for him to effect service on the defendants.
Justice Ojukwu granted his request and fixed the case for July 1.
