Godwin Emefiele, the former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, has been given till January 25 by the Federal High Court in Abuja to come into court and provide an explanation of the facts underlying the $53 million judgement debt resulting from the Paris Club refund.
In a brief ruling on Wednesday, Justice Inyang Ekwo threatened to issue an arrest warrant for Emefiele unless he granted him another chance to appear in person.
This came about as a result of Emefiele’s attorney, Audu Anuga (SAN), pleading that since he was still in detention, all attempts to guarantee his court appearance had failed.
Mr. Joe Agi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, filed a garnishee action against the CBN in order to get the Minister of Finance and Linas International Limited to pay back a $70 million judgement debt.
Form 15 (Judgement Summons), a court document, states that after the garnishee order absolute, the CBN paid Agi a portion of the $70 million, leaving a $53 million balance.
Emefiele has been ordered by Justice Ekwo to appear in court on several occasions about the subject.
During the Wednesday’s hearings, Anuga, Emefiele’s attorney, told the judge that he had submitted an affidavit on Monday to provide justification for not issuing an arrest warrant for Emefiele.
According to the News Agency of Nigeria, Jeremiah Utaan, a legal officer in the CBN’s Legal Department, told the court in an affidavit supporting Emefiele’s case that he was unable to present because he had been under the Department of State Services’ custody since June 10.
READ ALSO: EFCC questions Emefiele over suspected $15 billion in foreign debts and new naira notes
He declared, “I firmly feel that if the honourable court moves forward with issuing a warrant for Godwin Emefiele’s arrest, the cause of justice will not be served.”
The judge next inquired as to whether the judgement creditor’s attorney, I.A. Nnana, had received service.
Nnana replied that he was served on Monday but wanted more time to respond.
In response, Justice Ekwo declared that disobeying court orders would not be tolerated and demanded that Emefiele come before him.
Regarding the fourth respondent (Emefiele), I have consistently stated that contempt actions are taken against an individual regardless of their continued presence.
“In this instance, despite granting this specific individual a great deal of freedom and leniency, nothing seems to be changing.
“There isn’t much conversation because the opposing party claims they want to respond to the process, so I will defer the subject.
Court orders must be followed, and even in the event that no one does so, the court still has to follow its own directive.
“I’ll give you enough time.”
After that, the judge postponed the case until January 25 so that Emefiele could provide justification for why an arrest warrant shouldn’t be issued for him.
