N13.2b fuel subsidy claims: Court bars FG from prosecuting Coy

A Federal High Court on Wednesday barred the Federal government from prosecuting any official of the Integrated Oil and Gas Ltd on the alleged N13.2 billion fuel subsidy claims. Delivering a ruling in Abuja, Justice Gladys Olotu further ordered that the “status quo’’ be maintained pending the determination of the originating summons filed by the company. “The government and its agents are hereby prevented from arresting, detaining, prosecuting and recovering the N13.2 billion alleged to have been received by the plaintiff as fuel subsidy claims pending the determination of the case. This summons is hereby accorded an accelerated hearing in order to expeditiously dispose of it,’’ she said.

The company approached the court on June 25 with a motion on notice brought pursuant to Order 26 Rule 2 and Order 28 Rule 1 of the Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009. The House of Representatives, Rep. Farouk Lawan, Attorney General of the Federation, EFCC, ICPC and the Inspector General of Police are respondents in the matter. The suit is connected with the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee on the Monitoring of the Oil Subsidy Regime. The company, which is owned by a former Internal Affairs Minister, Retired Capt. Emmanuel Ihenacho, dragged the respondents to court following the indictment of the company as one of the major oil marketers that fraudulently benefited from the oil subsidy.

The Plaintiff had sought for a declaration that the subsidy refunds paid to the company in the sum of N13. 2 billion in respect of petroleum products imported between 2006 and 2011 was not sustainable, as unconstitutional, null and void. The plaintiff further sought for a declaration that the resolution of the first defendant passed on April 25 which approved the report of the Ad-hoc Committee was illegal. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the Federal Government as represented by the third to the sixth defendants were not entitled by law to act or take any step on account of the resolution of the first defendant. The Company had sought for an injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents or representatives from any act or taking steps against the plaintiff and its officers on account of implementing the April 25 subsidy report.