GTBANK Dispute: Risqua Murtala Mohammed,AMG Petroenergy says widespread media reports orchestrated
Son
of former Head of State, Risqua Murtala Mohammed, has said that there
were ulterior motives in the orchestrated widespread media reports, of a
routine commercial dispute between his company and the Guaranty Trust
Bank.
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 on Wednesday
by the Counsel to Mohammed’s company, AMG Petroenergy Limited, said the
Court order was an incidence common in commercial disputes, wondering
why this particular case generated huge attention.
“It is a fact that a Judge of the Federal High Court
granted various orders restraining our aforementioned clients from
operating their bank accounts,” it said.
“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. “
In his reaction, Group Chief Operations Officer of AMG
Petroenergy Limited, Ibrahim Baloni, explained that 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”).
This, he said, is sustained by them by virtue of their
having sold (directly or indirectly) their imported PMS at the regulated
“ex-depot” price in the event that such sale(s) was/were at a price
lower than the “landing cost” of the product as approved/recognized by
PPPRA.
Continuing, Baloni said: “In order to achieve the
importation of the said 15,000 MT of PMS, our Company drew down on an
Import Facility granted to it by Guaranty Trust Bank Plc, vide Offer of
Facility letter dated May 18, 2011, through the establishment of a
$15,562,807.15 (Fifteen Million, Five Hundred and Sixty-two Thousand,
Eight Hundred and Seven Dollars Fifteen Cents) Letter of Credit.
“It was a term of the said offer of Facility letter that
the facility shall be repaid from the proceeds of the transactions for
which the funds were to be utilized vide the domiciliation of sales
proceeds.
“On 1st January, 2012, the Federal Government of Nigeria
announced changes in its policy of subsidizing the importation of PMS
under the PSF Scheme pursuant to which the subject PMS was imported and
sold to Total.
“Between 1st January, 2012 and 16th January, 2012, the
Federal Government totally withdrew its erstwhile subsidization of the
importation of PMS and from 17th January, 2012, the Federal Government
re-introduced the said subsidization (the PSF Scheme) but to a reduced
extent.”
The official added that AMG Petroenergy Limited legal
representatives have been instructed to make its position clear to the
Court and seek redress there for the unprecedented negative publicity
provided by its Orders under reference.
Here is a full statement by Risqua’s Company
We are constrained to make this statement in view of
various publications in respect of a slew of Orders made ex parte (ie in
our absence and without hearing our side) by the Federal High Court of
Nigeria sitting in Lagos on 15th October, 2014. The Orders were made
pursuant to Claims brought before that Court by Guaranty Trust Bank Plc
seeking to recover monies from our Company, AMG PETROENERGY LIMITED and
it’s Managing Director, Mr. Risqua Murtala Muhammed.
THE FACTS AS THEY ARE:
Our Company, pursuant to an agreement with TOTAL NIGERIA
PLC (“Total”) for the purchase of Premium Motor Spirit (“PMS”), imported
15,000 MT (Fifteen Thousand Metric Tonnes) of PMS. The 15,000 MT
(22,018.244 Litres) of PMS was duly delivered to the designated Total
depot between 29th December, 2011 and 1st January, 2012 at the price of
N53.50/Ltr, pursuant to its expected sale at the government regulated
ex-depot price of N55.90/Ltr. The said supply to Total was made under
the Petroleum Support Fund (“PSF”) Scheme of the Federal Government of
Nigeria as it operated at the time of our Company’s transaction with
Total.
Under the aforementioned Scheme, importers of PMS,
authorized by the Federal Government through its Agency, the Petroleum
Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (“PPPRA”) were entitled to look to
the Federal Government of Nigeria 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, in the event that such sale(s) was/were at a price lower than the
“landing cost” of the product as approved/recognized by PPPRA.
In order to achieve the importation of the said 15,000 MT
of PMS, our Company drew down on an Import Facility granted to it by
Guaranty Trust Bank Plc, vide Offer of Facility letter dated May 18,
2011, through the establishment of a $15,562,807.15 (Fifteen Million,
Five Hundred and Sixty-two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seven Dollars
Fifteen Cents) Letter of Credit. It was a term of the said offer of
Facility letter that the facility shall be repaid from the proceeds of
the transactions for which the funds were to be utilized vide the
domiciliation of sales proceeds.
On 1st January, 2012, the Federal Government of Nigeria
announced changes in its policy of subsidizing the importation of PMS
under the PSF Scheme pursuant to which the subject PMS was imported and
sold to Total. Between 1st January, 2012 and 16th January, 2012, the
Federal Government totally withdrew its erstwhile subsidization of the
importation of PMS and from 17th January, 2012, the Federal Government
re-introduced the said subsidization (the PSF Scheme) but to a reduced
extent.
Consequent upon the changes in government policy referred
to above, the ex-depot prices of PMS at which Total sold and/or
“trucked-out” the PMS supplied to it by our Company, are as follows, on
the relevant dates shown below:
Between 1st January, 2012 and 16th January, 2012:N141.00
per litre, or thereabouts (i.e. above the PPPRA-recognised landing cost
of N122.56 per litre.
Between 17th January, 2012 and 26th July 2012: N81.51 per
litre, being the official truck-out price introduced upon reinstatement
of government’s subsidization policy.
The dates are significant because between those dates,
Total trucked-out for sale, the following quantities of the PMS supplied
to it by our company pursuant to the PSF Scheme:
1st January, 2012 to 16th January, 2012: 9,760,372 litres.
17th January, 2012 to 26th January, 2012: 12,257,871 litres.
17th January, 2012 to 26th January, 2012: 12,257,871 litres.
It is worthy of note that the recognized landing cost of
PMS at the material time (on the Mother Vessel Bill of Lading date) when
the cargo was received by Total at N53.50 per litre, was N122.56 per
litre.
Accordingly, Total realized an “additional” income in
respect of the subject cargo of PMS, in the total sum of N964,550,474
(Nine Hundred and Sixty-four Million, Five Hundred and Fifty Thousand,
Four Hundred and Seventy-four Naira).
As a marketer of PMS, and being, itself, an importer of PMS
under the PSF Scheme, Total knew or ought to have known that the
imported PMS was ONLY sold to it at N53.50 per litre under the PSF
Scheme on the premise that the official ex-depot price of N55.90 per
litre would apply thereto, whereupon our Company would look to the
Federal Government (through the PPPRA) for the realization of any
under-recoveries sustained as a consequence of the said sale, with the
said ex-depot price of N55.90 per litre operating as the base.
As such, the above-stated sum of N964,550,474 (Nine Hundred and
Sixty-Four Million, Five Hundred and Fifty Thousand, Four Hundred and
Seventy-Four Naira), realized and retained by Total, ought to be paid by
Total to our Company since the Federal Government will not reimburse us
for monies which have benefitted Total at the expense of Nigerians who
are the ones intended to benefit from its Policy under which any claims
for such monies would ordinarily arise.
The Federal Government, in January, 2014, paid the sum of
N503,185,645.60 (Five Hundred and Three Million, One Hundred and
Eighty-Five Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty-Five Naira, Sixty Kobo) to
our Company, through Guaranty Trust Bank, to cover a portion of the
under-recovery sustained on the subject cargo after the reinstatement of
the subsidization policy on 17th January, 2012.
The said payment was, however, made only to the extent that
Total did not benefit at the expense of Nigerians, as aforementioned.
As such, though our indebtedness to the bank was reduced by the said
amount, its realization still left our Company exposed for the earlier
stated sum of N964,550,474 (Nine Hundred and Sixty-Four Million, Five
Hundred and Fifty Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Four Naira) and
accrued interest.
Total, despite several demands made to it by our Company to
reimburse us with the above stated sum, blatantly refuses to do so.
Consequently, our Company was constrained to institute an action at the
High Court of Lagos State against Total in Suit No. LD/ADR/256/2013: AMG
Petroenergy Limited & Downstream Energy Source Limited V. Total
Nigeria Plc, wherein we seek to recover the “additional” income it made
at the expense of our Company.
Notwithstanding the said Suit against Total, our Company
continues to appeal to the PPPRA, as industry regulator, to come to our
aid in addressing the issue with Total, in order that justice is
achieved and our Company (and, ultimately, Guaranty Trust Bank) is
reimbursed by Total with the above stated sum, in order to avoid going
through the full length of a cumbersome litigation process.
In summary, it is these matters that have resulted in the
Orders made by the Federal High Court. Our Company has consistently kept
Guaranty Trust Bank aware of the efforts being made to secure payment
as indicated above and, of course, that the monies it borrowed were
utilized for no purpose other than that for which they were provided.
Needless to say, our legal representatives have been instructed to, once
provided with the opportunity, make our position clear to the Court and
seek redress there for the unprecedented negative publicity provided by
its Orders under reference.
