(Photo credit:ionigeria.com)
Son of former Head of State, Risqua Murtala Mohammed, has alleged that there were ulterior motives in the orchestrated hype and widespread report of a routine commercial dispute between his company and the Guaranty Trust Bank.He added that without the benefit of his side being heard, the matter has strangely generated sensation in the media.
A Federal High Court was quoted by some national dailies to have barred Risqua Mohammed from withdrawing funds from his accounts in any of the financial institutions in the country for allegedly failing to liquidate a N1.365 billion credit facility.
A statement issued yesterday by the Counsel to Mohammed’s company, AMG Petroenergy Limited, said the Court Order was an incident common in commercial disputes and should ordinarily not have merited any attention.
The statement said: “It is a fact that a Judge of the Federal High Court granted various orders restraining our aforementioned clients from operating their bank accounts. As the orders were granted ex parte, it is only upon further hearing that our clients will be afforded the opportunity of being heard in the advancement of their interests in the case.”
Clarifying the matter, Consolex Legal Practitioners confirmed that there currently exists an unresolved payment dispute between AMG and Total which has resulted in suit between AMG and Anor V. Total Nigeria limited.
It explained that AMG entered into a contractual arrangement with Total Nigeria for the supply of Premium Motor Spirit under the Petroleum Support Fund (PSF) Scheme, while Guaranty Trust Bank Limited, on behalf of AMG, financed the transaction.
“The repayment of the facility was to be made from “subsidy” payments received from the federal government. AMG duly supplied the products as contractually agreed to Total between December 29, 2011, and January 1, 2012.
Also reacting the Group Chief Operations officer of AMG Petroenergy limited, Ibrahim Baloni, said under the Scheme, importers of PMS, authorised by the federal government through its agency, the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA) were entitled to look to the federal government for all short-falls (“under-recoveries”) sustained by them by virtue of their having sold (directly or indirectly) their imported PMS at the regulated “ex-depot” price.
