The Bureau of the Board of Governors of the African Development Bank (AfDB) has denied media reports making the rounds that AfDB’s president, Akinwumi Adesina, has been asked to step down pending the completion of the probe and determination of allegations against him.
The bank’s top governing board members said that they have not asked Adesina to step down from his position as president, even as the board continues to review the fallout of complaints by some whistleblower. The statement from the Chairman of the bank’s board of governors, Niale Kaba, said:
“The Bureau of the board of governors informs the public that it has not taken any decision. Everyone must allow the Bureau to do its work and allow due process to reign. All governors will be carried along in resolving the issue.’’
Kaba also stressed that there was no governance crisis at AfDB as was being speculated in certain quarters. He confirmed that the Bureau of the Board of Governors of AfDB met on Tuesday, May 26, after the request by the U.S Secretary calling for an independent probe. The essence of the meeting was to take a closer look at the allegations by the whistleblowers against Akinwumi Adesina, said allegations which had already been investigated by the ethics committee of the bank.
Kaba further disclosed that even though no decision has been taken yet, the bureau assures that it is treating the case with the utmost seriousness that it deserves.
Adesina, who maintains his innocence of those allegations, had stated that a fair, transparent, and just process will vindicate him.
In a related development, former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo had thrown his weight behind Adesina and kicked against the demand by the United States of America for a fresh, independent probe of the AfDB President who had earlier been cleared by the ethics committee of the bank.
In his letter to 12 former African Presidents, Obasanjo said that Africa must stand up and not allow its institutions to be unduly controlled by non-African countries.
Obasanjo said that the bank has witnessed tremendous growth under Adesina’s leadership and has doubled its capital base since he took over.
DPR allays fears of possible looming fuel scarcity, says it has enough stock
The cumulative depot stock is a combined number owned by the PPMC and major independent marketers.
The Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) announced that the available PMS depot stock as at July 7 is 1,469,146,806 litres with an estimated daily national demand of 38,200,000 litres which is sufficient for 38 days.
The regulator announced that the cumulative depot stock is a combined number owned by the PPMC and major independent marketers.
Lagos is listed as the state with the highest stock. As at July 6th, 2020, there are 687,932,669 litres with 54 depots and 1,303 trucks carrying an average of 33,000 litres. Meanwhile, the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, has 56,224,948 litres.
As for discharges volumes of PMS vessels by 7 July at depots. Lagos had discharged 34,224,000 litres followed by Warri at 20,453,134 and Calabar/Eket at 11,021,000 totaling 65,718,134.
READ MORE: The conundrum in the retail pricing of PMS
The data shows that Nigeria currently has enough PMS stock and does not run the risk of a possible scarcity, at least for now. It also shows that the recent increase in fuel pump price was not due to possible looming scarcity, as some people had feared. Recall that last week, the Federal Government increased fuel pump price to N143.80 per litre after a review of the “prevailing market fundamentals in the month of June and considering marketers’ realistic operating costs”.
Access Bank in advanced discussions with Zambian Bank regarding merger
The bank noted that there are no guarantees to whether the transaction pans out or not.
Access Bank Zambia Limited announced that it is now in advanced discussions with Cavmont Capital Holdings Zambia Plc. regarding possible merger of Cavmont Bank Limited. The announcement was disclosed by Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) in a corporate disclosure which was duly signed by the Company Secretary, Mr. Sunday Ekwochi.
The disclosure by the bank read, “Access Bank Plc (“Access Bank”) announces today that its wholly-owned subsidiary in Zambia, Access Bank Zambia Limited (“Access Bank Zambia”) has entered into exclusive discussions with Cavmont Holdings Zambia Plc (“Cavmont Capital”) regarding a potential transaction between Access bank Zambia and Cacmont Bank Limited (“Cavmont Bank”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cavmont Capital. The potential transaction relates to the sale of 100% of Cavmont Capital interest in Cavmont Bank to Access Bank Zambia.”
The bank has, however, noted that there are no guarantees as to whether the transaction pans out or not. “There can be no certainty that a transaction will be agreed, nor as to the terms of any such agreement. The completion of a transaction would be subject to formal regulatory approvals. Access Bank will update the market as appropriate and in accordance with its disclosure obligations.” It also advised shareholders accordingly, to exercise caution when dealing in Access Bank’s securities until a full announcement is made.
Nairametrics had reported in October 2019 that Access Bank from the first quarter of 2020, would expand its footprint across Africa. After its merger with Diamond Bank, it acquired 100% of Kenya’s Transnational Bank Plc and its 28 branches, as the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK). Three months later, it also notified the Nigerian Stock Exchange of its intention to establish a subsidiary in Cameroon.
Access Bank Plc. recorded a profit after tax of N40.9 billion in the first quarter period ended March 31st, 2020. This was bolstered by an increase in Net interest income which stood at N72.2 billion, indicating a 27% increase compared to N56.8 billion that was recorded in Q1 2019.
Its shares at market open today stood at N6.40, on the lower end of its 52-week range of N5.30 and N12.00. It’s price to earnings ratio was 2.24 and price to book, 0.3566.
CITN issues rejoinder to ICAN’s claim over court case
The rebuttal claims that there are some ‘critical misinterpretations’ contained in ICAN’s claims concerning the judgment.
The Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria (CITN) has issued a rebuttal to the “critical misrepresentations” that are supposedly contained in a notice to members sent out by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN) over a court case, as reported by Nairametrics.
Recall that ICAN had informed its members that Justice S. A. Onigbanjo of the High Court of Lagos State ruled in their favour by striking out “Suit No. LD/3288GCM/19 – CITN VS ICAN” which was filed by CITN. In the suit, CITN had, among other things, prayed the court to restrain ICAN members from filing tax returns with the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) unless they have a CITN license.
CITN’s position: Now, in its rebuttal to ICAN’s claims concerning the court case, a copy of which was sent to Nairametrics, CITN clarified the following points:
- The Ruling of the Hon. Justice S. A. Onigbanjo of the 2/7/2020 in LD/3288GCM/19 did not invalidate the MOU and TOS because it did NOT address the issues in the substantive suit, itself. However, since ICAN has resiled from the MoU and ToS it freely entered with CITN, the CITN will not stop ICAN from walking away.
- The Judge only struck out the suit based on the Preliminary Objection of ICAN to the effect that the suit was an abuse of court process because the issues in it were the same as the issues in FHC/L/CS/125/2019 – ICAN VS FIRS & 1 OTHER which was earlier decided in favour of CITN. However, the issues in the two suits are completely different and distinct as has now been explicitly admitted by ICAN in its Notice under reference when it said: “The earlier ruling at the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/125/2019 did not make pronouncement on the memorandum and terms of settlement between ICAN and CITN.”ICAN having admitted that the judgment in FHC/L/CS/125/2019 did not make any pronouncement on the MOU and TOS (and this is a fact), how then could issues in that suit be the same as those in LD/3288GCM/2019 (decided by Justice Onigbanjo) which only asked for judicial pronouncement on the MOU and TOS?
- Regulation 5 of the Tax Administration (Self-Assessment) Regulations, 2011, was categorically annulled by the Hon. Justice Liman in the judgment delivered in FHC/L/CS/125/2019 on 21/11/2019. None of the lawyers to the parties (including ICAN) can deny hearing the annulment of Regulation 5 during delivery of the judgment. It is unfortunate that ICAN is jumping the gun in a case with a pending post-judgment application.
- In the judgment delivered in FHC/L/CS/1480/2018 – CHIEF IGBAROOLA & OTHERS VS FIRS & OTHERS on 21/5/2019, the Hon. Justice A. O. Faji, declared: “CITN Act is thus superior to ICAN Act on the issue of tax practice. The Self-Assessment Regulations being in conflict with the CITN Act is null and void. The Plaintiffs cannot practice as tax agents without first being members of the 2nd Defendant.”
- In the Court of Appeal judgement of 2013 between ICAN v. CITN, it was held that the power to regulate and control the tax profession, to the exclusion of any other body, in Nigeria lies with CITN.
- It is, therefore, now firmly settled from all the relevant judgements at the Lagos High Court, Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, which have all upheld the primacy of the CITN Charter, that no member of ICAN can practice taxation without first being a member of CITN.
- For the avoidance of doubt, no ICAN member, who is not registered with CITN, has been permitted by any law or court decision to practice taxation. The law has made it clear about the professional body that can regulate tax profession in Nigeria and CITN reserves the right to invoke the relevant provisions against any person that violates the provisions of its charter.
The backstory: The disagreement between ICAN and CITN dates back to 2015 following a misinterpretation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Terms of Settlement (ToS) between the two organisations. Due to the disagreement, CITN took legal actions in a bid to basically make the MoU and ToS binding on ICAN members.