Take It Back (TIB) movement has dragged the United Bank for Africa (UBA) for freezing its account during the #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protests.
Ravenewsonline understands that this was made known in a suit numbered FHC/L/CS/1846/2024 filed through its legal representatives led by human rights lawyer, Inibehe Effiong.
TIB said the suit was pursuant to sections 44, 46(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As amended); Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act LFN 2010; Order 2 Rule (1) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.
The TIB, an applicant, in its originating motion on Notice prayed the court for “A declaration that the freezing and restriction of the Applicant’s account with Account Number: 2109193911 and Account Name: Take It Back domiciled with the Respondent; United Bank for Africa Pic is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and a breach of the Applicant’s right to property guaranteed by the provisions of Section 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Article 14 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification And Enforcement) Act LFN 2010.
“An order of this Honourable Court directing the Respondent to lift the restriction placed on the Applicant’s account with Account number: 2109193911 and Account Name: Take It Back domicile with the Respondent; United Bank for Africa Plc forthwith.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent whether by itself, its agents, privies/or servants from unlawfully interfering with the Applicant’s account with Account Number: 2109193911 and Account Name: Take It Back domiciled with the Respondent; United Bank for Africa Plc.
“An order of this Honourable Court mandating the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) as general damages for the unlawful freezing of the Applicant’s account with Account Number: 2109193911 and Account Name: Take It Back domiciled with the Respondent; United Bank for Africa Plc.
“An order of this Honourable Court mandating the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the cost of prosecuting the instant suit.”
In an affidavit, the TIB’s Southwest Coordinator, Tomide Johnson, said on July 26, 2024, at about 10:00 am, he learnt that the Applicant’s bank account with Account No: 2109193911 with Account Name: Take It Back, domiciled with the Respondent was no longer accessible and had been frozen by the Respondent.
He said, “I was confused and wondered if it was a network glitch and I made a call to the founder, Mr. Omoyele Stephen Sowore who confirmed that the news was true.
“I know for a fact that the non-access to the Applicant’s account with the Respondent persisted and the Applicant was unable to make any financial transaction due to the inability to access the funds contained in its restricted account.
“The Applicant’s founder who is also one of its directors, Mr. Omoyele Stephen Sowore sent an email dated 26th July, 2024 to the Respondent lodging a complaint on how the Applicant’s account number domiciled with it (the Respondent) has now become inoperable.
“A copy of the email sent to the Respondent containing the said complaint is hereby attached to this Affidavit and marked as Exhibit “A”.”
He said, “Despite the email the Applicant’s founder sent to the Respondent, the restriction placed on the Applicant’s account was still not lifted.
“I was worried and wondered why the Applicant’s account was frozen all of a sudden. There had been rumors connecting the Respondent’s act of freezing of the Applicant’s account with the planned October 1, 2024 End Bad Governance protest, but I and other directors of the Applicant still decided to give the Respondent the benefit of the doubt by reaching out to the Applicant to get some clarification.
“On the 26th of July, 2024, the Applicant employed the services of its Solicitor, Inibehe Effiong, Esq. to write a demand letter to the Respondent demanding that the Respondent offer a well-detailed, formal and immediate written explanation for the freezing of the Applicant’s account within 24 hours (Twenty-four hours) of the receipt of the letter.
“The letter is dated 26th July, 2024, addressed to the Respondent through its Managing Director. A copy of the demand letter was served on the Respondent via email.
“A copy of the demand letter dated 26th July, 2024 served on the Respondent via email is hereby attached to. this Affidavit and marked as Exhibit “B”.
“I was informed by the Applicants solicitor, Inibehe Effiong Esq at his office at 107 Aina Street, Ojodu, Ikeja, Lagos on 9th October, 2024 at about 1:00 pm and I verily believe him when he said that on Monday, 29th July, 2024, when one of the clerks in the office of the Applicant’s Solicitor, Ms. Wendy Ugokwe, made attempt to serve the Respondent with a physical copy of the demand letter, the Respondent’s security officer refused to collect it.
“I know for a fact that on the 9th of August, 2024, the Applicant’s founder received an email from the Respondent regarding the Applicant’s complaint on its restricted account.
“The Respondent requested that the Applicant through its founder send the registration documents of the Applicant and a comprehensive Article and Memorandum of Association.
“A copy of the email from the Respondent dated August 9, 2024 is hereby attached to this Affidavit and marked as Exhibit “C”.”
He said that in response to the Respondent’s email, the Applicant through its founder furnished the Respondent with all relevant documents it required of the Applicant, and that the documents had already been provided to the Respondent at the time of opening of the account.
“I know for a fact that the Respondent has not produced any court order directing it to restrict the Applicant’s account.
“That to date, the Applicant’s account still remains inoperable and the restriction has not been lifted till date,” he said.
Johnson said, “I am of the firm and reasonable belief that there is no form of justification whatsoever for the Respondent’s act of freezing the Applicant’s account.
“I also know for a fact that since the Respondent restricted the Applicant’s account, the Applicant has been unable to make withdrawals or transact with the account.
“The Respondent’s restriction placed on the Applicant’s account has disrupted and negatively interfered with the financial transactions of the Applicant.
“The inability of the Applicant to access its bank account domiciled with the Respondent due to the restriction has now occasioned overdue bills on the Applicant, which the Applicant has been unable to pay owing to its inability to access the funds contained in its restricted account.
“The Respondent’s act of freezing the Applicant’s account has also occasioned huge financial stress and embarrassment on the Applicant.
“The Applicant now borrows money to address some of its essential needs and facilitate its objectives.
“I state for a fact that since the restriction on the Applicant’s account by the Respondent, there have been disrupted operations in the activities of the Applicant such as the Applicant having to buy goods on credit.
“Part of the funds contained in the Applicant’s restricted account is what the Applicant uses for its charitable deeds, and actualization of its objectives but all of that have been frustrated by the restriction which the Respondent has placed on the account and has refused to lift till date.”
