Fear grips Aig/Wigwe as Court reopens Access/Intercontinental Bank acquisition saga

L-R: Aig and Wigwe

 SHOWBIZPLUSng can authoritatively report that palpable fear now pervades the tension-soaked corporate head office of Access Bank, as a Federal High Court in Lagos will on Wednesday, June 4, revisit the issues surrounding the controversial and questionable acquisition of the defunct Intercontinental Bank by Access Bank Plc.

Former Managing Director of Intercontinental Bank, Erastus Akingbola, had petitioned the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRCN) requesting a thorough probe of the circumstances leading to the acquisition of the defunct bank by Access Bank.

However, the panic stricken Managing Director of Access Bank, Herbert Wigwe, had in conjunction with his embattled predecessor, Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede, filed a suit before Justice Mohammed Idris, seeking to halt the probe.

Specifically, troubled Aig-Imoukhuede and Wigwe are challenging the powers of FRCN to investigate Akingbola’s petition in regard to acquisition of the defunct bank.

The controversial and questionable acquisition deal was perfected while Aig-Imoukhuede was the Managing Director of Access Bank and Wigwe, the Deputy Managing Director at the time of the acquisition.

In the instant suit, the plaintiffs (Aig-Imoukhuede and Wigwe) are praying for an order of the court restraining FRCN and its agents from entertaining, investigating, looking into or sitting over any matter relating to or connected with or ancillary however to acquisition of the defunct Intercontinental Bank, or purporting to pass or make any judgment, administrative decision or make any recommendation to the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in terms of the letter of invitation sent to the bank by FRCN pending the hearing and final determination of the suit.

But FRCN has responded to the suit via a preliminary objection filed by its lawyer, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN) challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit.

The agency has also filed a counter-affidavit in opposition to the plaintiffs’ affidavit in support of their court process.

At the last adjourned date, Justice Idris had refused a bid by the plaintiffs to get an order staying action on the probe pending the hearing of the suit.

The judge had hinged his decision on the ground that his jurisdiction was being challenged.

Already, the plaintiffs have appealed the decision of Justice Idris not to grant a preservative order.