$15bn Judgment: Petro Union Lawyers Disagree Over Sharing Formula

The Petro Union fraud case, scheduled for hearing yesterday,
Monday, was disrupted due to an ongoing disagreement between two of
the lawyers of Petro Union, Joe Kyari Gadzama (SAN) and Onyechi
Egwuonwu, over how the proceeds of the fraud will be shared if
their case eventually succeeds, According to sun report.^[1]

Before the Supreme Court Panel led by Justice Olukayode Ariwoola
could attend to the case, the court’s first case for the day, it
first had to understand the several court processes before it in
the matter. After the lawyers for Petro Union, Central Bank of
Nigeria (CBN), Union Bank, Minister for Finance and the Attorney
General of the Federation had announced their appearances, it
turned out that the court could not proceed until the issue of
which lawyers would represent Petro Union was resolved.

Onyechi Egwuonwu, Petro Union’s lawyer at the Federal High Court
where the $15 billion judgment against CBN and others was given,
informed the apex court of his irrevocable power of attorney to
represent the company in the matter, explaining that it was he who,
in fact, briefed Gadzama to lead him and other lawyers when the
case got to the Court of Appeal. He informed the court that he has
a pending application to disqualify Gadzama from appearing in the
case and to disbar him from practising as a legal practitioner due
to unprofessional conduct.

Efforts by the Supreme Court justices and other senior lawyers
in court to persuade Egwuonwu and Gadzama to resolve the issue of
their fees amicably fell on deaf ears and the court had no option
but to adjourn the application on sharing of proceeds between the
lawyers to 22 November 2021.

Meanwhile, the pending applications of Union Bank in the matter
have been scheduled for hearing at the Supreme Court on Monday,
July 5, 2021.

Petro Union’s antics began in 1994 when the company allegedly
procured a cheque from a branch of Barclays Bank in the UK with a
value of £2.556 billion and presented it at one of Union Bank’s
branches in Lagos, under the pretext that the oil company was meant
to use the funds to construct three petrochemical refinery
complexes in Nigeria and establish a bank in Nigeria. While the
required due diligence investigations were being carried out, one
Mr. Okpala, the Managing Director of Petro Union, allegedly
inundated the Bank and the CBN with visits and demands for the
release of the cheque.

Eventually, both the CBN and Union Bank advised Petro Union that
Barclays Bank in the UK had been contacted and had subsequently
confirmed that the cheque could not be given value because the
company that purportedly issued the cheque dated December 29, 1994
(a company, known as Gazeaft Limited) did not exist on the Register
of Companies in the UK. The response similarly affirmed that the
account on which the cheque was drawn was closed on September 21,
1989, while the cheque was issued on December 29, 1994, – five
years after the account was closed.

Despite the startling discovery and decisive response, Petro
Union and Isaac Okpala persisted with their demands, culminating in
a petition by the company to the Lagos office of the EFCC, for
alleged offences of stealing and criminal conversion against the
CBN and Union Bank. Following, the petition, the EFCC investigated
the allegation by interrogating the CBN through a letter dated
January 12, 2005. In a letter dated January 27, 2005, The CBN
responded to the query by the EFCC wherein it denied the
allegations of Petro Union. The EFCC also made other efforts to
investigate the allegations including corresponding with Barclays
Bank in the UK. Having concluded its investigation, the EFCC issued
a letter dated May 10, 2005, addressed to the Managing Director of
Union Bank, exonerating the bank from any wrongdoing.

However, in its desperation to use the allegedly forged cheque
to perpetrate the fraud on CBN and Union Bank, Petro Union in
February 2012 instituted an action at a Federal High Court, Abuja
seeking sundry reliefs.

The Petro Union fraud case, scheduled for hearing yesterday,
Monday, was disrupted due to an ongoing disagreement between two of
the lawyers of Petro Union, Joe Kyari Gadzama (SAN) and Onyechi
Egwuonwu, over how the proceeds of the fraud will be shared if
their case eventually succeeds, According to sun report.^[1]

Before the Supreme Court Panel led by Justice Olukayode Ariwoola
could attend to the case, the court’s first case for the day, it
first had to understand the several court processes before it in
the matter. After the lawyers for Petro Union, Central Bank of
Nigeria (CBN), Union Bank, Minister for Finance and the Attorney
General of the Federation had announced their appearances, it
turned out that the court could not proceed until the issue of
which lawyers would represent Petro Union was resolved.

Onyechi Egwuonwu, Petro Union’s lawyer at the Federal High Court
where the $15 billion judgment against CBN and others was given,
informed the apex court of his irrevocable power of attorney to
represent the company in the matter, explaining that it was he who,
in fact, briefed Gadzama to lead him and other lawyers when the
case got to the Court of Appeal. He informed the court that he has
a pending application to disqualify Gadzama from appearing in the
case and to disbar him from practising as a legal practitioner due
to unprofessional conduct.

Efforts by the Supreme Court justices and other senior lawyers
in court to persuade Egwuonwu and Gadzama to resolve the issue of
their fees amicably fell on deaf ears and the court had no option
but to adjourn the application on sharing of proceeds between the
lawyers to 22 November 2021.

Meanwhile, the pending applications of Union Bank in the matter
have been scheduled for hearing at the Supreme Court on Monday,
July 5, 2021.

Petro Union’s antics began in 1994 when the company allegedly
procured a cheque from a branch of Barclays Bank in the UK with a
value of £2.556 billion and presented it at one of Union Bank’s
branches in Lagos, under the pretext that the oil company was meant
to use the funds to construct three petrochemical refinery
complexes in Nigeria and establish a bank in Nigeria. While the
required due diligence investigations were being carried out, one
Mr. Okpala, the Managing Director of Petro Union, allegedly
inundated the Bank and the CBN with visits and demands for the
release of the cheque.

Eventually, both the CBN and Union Bank advised Petro Union that
Barclays Bank in the UK had been contacted and had subsequently
confirmed that the cheque could not be given value because the
company that purportedly issued the cheque dated December 29, 1994
(a company, known as Gazeaft Limited) did not exist on the Register
of Companies in the UK. The response similarly affirmed that the
account on which the cheque was drawn was closed on September 21,
1989, while the cheque was issued on December 29, 1994, – five
years after the account was closed.

Despite the startling discovery and decisive response, Petro
Union and Isaac Okpala persisted with their demands, culminating in
a petition by the company to the Lagos office of the EFCC, for
alleged offences of stealing and criminal conversion against the
CBN and Union Bank. Following, the petition, the EFCC investigated
the allegation by interrogating the CBN through a letter dated
January 12, 2005. In a letter dated January 27, 2005, The CBN
responded to the query by the EFCC wherein it denied the
allegations of Petro Union. The EFCC also made other efforts to
investigate the allegations including corresponding with Barclays
Bank in the UK. Having concluded its investigation, the EFCC issued
a letter dated May 10, 2005, addressed to the Managing Director of
Union Bank, exonerating the bank from any wrongdoing.

However, in its desperation to use the allegedly forged cheque
to perpetrate the fraud on CBN and Union Bank, Petro Union in
February 2012 instituted an action at a Federal High Court, Abuja
seeking sundry reliefs.