The Nation Newspaper

Tag: AMCON

  • AMCON collects N577.8b from CBN, banks to settle obligations

    AMCON collects N577.8b from CBN, banks to settle obligations

    The Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) received a whopping N577.84 billion from 15 commercial banks and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to settle its outstanding obligations on issued securities.

    In a CBN report for the first half of last year, the apex bank said the collections into the Banking Sector Resolution Cost Fund (BSRCF) in the review period amounted to N577.84 billion.

    It said the funds were contributed by the CBN and 15 banks.

     “AMCON utilised the funds to settle its obligations on issued securities,” the financial sector regulator said in its financial stability report posted on its website.

    It said AMCON’s total cash recoveries during the review period increased by 27.87 per cent to N66.12 billion from N51.71 billion at end-December 2024.

     “Furthermore, investment income from treasury operations rose by 2.08 per cent to N15.22 billion from N14.91 billion over the preceding half,” it said.

    CBN further disclosed that cumulatively, the total recoveries rose by 4.42 per cent to N2.42 trillion from N2.32 trillion during the preceding period, made up of cash N984.52 billion, other collections (property sale, share sales, rental income, dividend income, sale of bridge banks and re-investment income) N1,291.95 billion and asset forfeiture of N149.90 billion.

    The apex bank added that the stronger recovery performance contributed to a reduction in AMCON’s liabilities, even as cumulative recoveries climbed to N2.43 trillion, reflecting sustained efforts to strengthen the Corporation’s balance sheet.

    It was the rising Non-Performing Loans (NPLs), and the need to save the financial sector from imminent collapse that prompted the Federal Government to set up the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) in 2010.

    AMCON is an institution created for the purchase and resolution of NPLs from the banks. It is also an instrument created by the Federal Government by which the government bolsters ailing banks through the injection of capital in consideration for equity.

    AMCON’s creation or intervention was in response to the global economic crisis of 2008/2009; coupled with poor corporate governance practice in the Nigerian banking sector at the time, which had a severe adverse effect on the banking system.

    Read Also: ‘Nigeria opposition politicians incoherent, lack imagination, alternative vision’

    Prior to the establishment of AMCON in 2010, the banking sector was assailed by a myriad of problems, the greatest of which were an all-time high NPLs ratio of more than 40 per cent at that time, poor corporate governance practices, poor risk management, low liquidity as well as insufficient capital adequacy ratio just to mention a few.

    Before the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, there was no special insolvency regime for managing bank distress, and banks either failed or were bailed out with no hybrid scheme of restructuring their assets, which AMCON intervention provided.

    Accordingly, the utilization of AMCON to manage the toxic assets on banks’ balance sheets was one of the tools available under the post-financial crisis resolution framework.

    AMCON Managing Director/CEO, Gbenga Alade, disclosed that the corporation at inception bought bad loans worth N5.4 trillion from banks and moved quickly to recover the loans.

    He said that with inevitable sunset date and recalcitrant debtors, a high premium is placed on debt recovery efforts to ensure that the Corporation achieves its statutory mandate.

    Alade until the enactment of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 (CAMA 2020), the Nigerian corporate insolvency law lagged behind the bank resolution regime.

    He said that systemic bank distress can be likened to an epidemic in the health sector.

     “It requires special rules to deal with it based on a robust structure of an insolvency regime of regulation or business rescue, liquidation, priorities, secure creditors’ rights and limitations, and transnational cooperation amongst others. Just like in the health sector, the   financial system will return to normal after overcoming the financial epidemic,” he said at one of his meetings with judges.

  • AMCON loses out as court revokes order placing GHL under receivership

    AMCON loses out as court revokes order placing GHL under receivership

    Justice Adetayo Aluko of the Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday revoked the preliminary order which placed General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) and its assets under the purported Receiver Manager appointed by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Seyi Akinwunmi.

    Justice Aluko nullified the order while ruling on the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the Chairman of GHL, Prince Nduka Obaigbena, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.

    Akinwunmi had filed the suit seeking to give effect to the purported receivership over General Hydrocarbons Limited and its assets.

    In his ruling, the judge agreed with Obaigbena’s objection that the suit was an abuse of court process because of the prior existence of Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1903/2025 – General Hydrocarbons Limited against AMCON & 3 others.

    The Court also held that Akinwunmi and his counsel commenced this suit in breach of the clear orders of Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1903/2025, marked September 23, 2025, wherein AMCON and its agents, privies, nominees, etc., were prohibited from appointing or continuing with the appointment of a receiver over General Hydrocarbons Limited and its assets.

    The Court further stated that Akinwunmi, having been appointed by AMCON, was an agent of AMCON, and thereby bound by the orders of Justice Lewis-Allagoa in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1903/2025 against AMCON.

    Justice Aluko also acknowledged that Akinwunmi and his counsel, Bidemi Ademola-Bello (SAN), deliberately suppressed facts in commencing this suit and securing the interim orders against General Hydrocarbons Limited and its assets.

    Read Also: Tinubu unveils new security, economic blueprint to harness Nigeria’s marine wealth

    The Court also held that if Akinwunmi and his counsel had disclosed the existence of the prior orders of Justice Lewis-Allagoa in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1903/2025, Justice Aluko would not have granted the interim orders of 24th October 2025.

    Additionally, the Court reviewed the subject matter and parties in the case before Justice Lewis-Allagoa, as well as the current lawsuit, and concluded that they are identical or very similar.

    It found no justification for filing a new case on the same issue (by the same parties) when an earlier substantive suit in the same Court can resolve all the disputes between the parties.

    On this basis, the Court held that the suit was an abuse of court process, having been commenced in violation of the prior orders of Justice Lewis-Allagoa in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1903/2025.

    Justice Aluko also stated that Akinwunmi and his counsel’s actions could undermine the credibility of the judicial process and represent a significant waste of the Court’s time and resources, which should be frowned upon.

    The judge, therefore, dismissed the suit and set aside its interim orders made on 24th October 2025.

  • Ex-AMCON MD diverted N4.9billion Arik funds, staff to float NG Eagle, witness tells court

    Ex-AMCON MD diverted N4.9billion Arik funds, staff to float NG Eagle, witness tells court

    A Lagos State Special Offences Court yesterday heard how a former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, allegedly diverted N4.9 billion belonging to the defunct Arik Air Limited to establish a new airline, NG Eagle Airlines.

    Testifying before Justice Mojisola Dada, an investigative officer with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Bawa Kaltungo, said the diversion was uncovered during the Commission’s probe of the defendants.

    Kuru is standing trial alongside Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Captain Roy Ilegbodu, Union Bank Plc, and Super Bravo Limited.

    Led in evidence by the lead prosecution counsel, Dr. Wahab Shittu (SAN), Kaltungo said a statement provided by Arik’s former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Jonathan Sani, provided the details of how N4.5 billion was moved from Arik to fund NG Eagle, an airline allegedly owned and controlled by the defendants.

    The EFCC investigator explained that Kuru, Omokide, and Ilegbodu allegedly conspired to move a total of N4.9 billion out of Arik’s assets to float the new airline, while also transferring Arik employees to NG Eagle.

    Read Also: Osimhen wants Onyedika at Galatasaray

    According to him, NG Eagle was incorporated while Kuru was still the MD of AMCON, and Omokide served as Receiver Manager over Arik, creating a conflict that facilitated the alleged diversion.

    Kaltungo told the court that Arik Air continued to bear the burden of salaries and operational expenses for NG Eagle’s workers during its formative stage.

    During proceedings yesterday, the court admitted several documents, including a certified ex parte order, marked P17.

    Other admitted materials – labelled P18, P25, P26, P44, and P45 – included photographs and a flash drive containing a video of vandalised aircraft, which was played in open court.

    “This investigation report is based strictly on documentary evidence recovered during the course of our work,” Kaltungo told the court.

    Counsel to the second and third defendants applied for the release of their clients’ passports for renewal and medical travel.

    Justice Dada granted the request but ordered that the passports be returned to the court registry on or before January 2, next year.

    The court adjourned the matter to the earlier scheduled dates as well as March 2 and 3, next year, for continuation of trial.

  • Court bars AMCON-appointed lawyer from representing GHL

    Court bars AMCON-appointed lawyer from representing GHL

    Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday stopped Oluseye Opasanya (SAN) from appearing as counsel for General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) in its suit against the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) and three others.

    The judge held that Opasanya’s purported appointment by AMCON-appointed Receiver/Manager, Seyi Akinwunmi, was improper and in violation of a subsisting court order.

    He approved Dr Abiodun Layonu (SAN) as the legitimate lawyer representing GHL in the case.

    Layonu and Opasanya had both announced their appearances on behalf of the plaintiff during the previous sitting, which led the court to ask them to address the issue.

    In his submissions, Layonu informed the judge that he remains the official counsel for GHL, having complied with court directives by submitting an application and affidavit on December 3, 2025.

    He asked the court to confirm his status as the company’s proper representative, arguing that AMCON’s purported appointment of a Receiver/Manager violated existing court orders.

    However, Opasanya submitted that AMCON appointed a Receiver/Manager on September 18, and that he had tendered his appointment document in an affidavit dated December 2.

    Read Also: Osimhen wants Onyedika at Galatasaray

    He explained that once a Receiver is appointed, the company’s directors lose their authority, including the power to appoint legal counsel, and any lawyer acting on their instructions no longer has authority.

    He failed to disclose that AMCON was barred by the Federal High Court from continuing with any such appointment until the determination of the case.

    Ruling, Justice Lewis-Allagoa held that Opasanya’s appointment was improper, but that Dr Layonu’s authority was backed by a letter of instruction dated September 17, and that he had initiated the case and appeared regularly in court.

    The judge also found that after reviewing the instruction evidence from both lawyers, Dr Layonu possessed a letter from GHL dated September 17, 2025, while Opasanya had a letter from Seyi Akinwunmi, the alleged receiver appointed by AMCON, dated November 14, 2025.

    The court further stated that Layonu had been instructed by GHL, had initiated and signed the suit’s originating processes, and had consistently appeared in court.

    Conversely, Opasanya’s instruction came nearly two months after a court order prohibited further actions by any receiver.

    The court emphasised that court orders must be obeyed until they are formally overturned, and that Opasanya’s appointment, having failed to follow the proper procedure, constitutes a violation of existing court orders.

    The court also addressed the issue of conflict of interest raised by Layonu, who argued that Opasanya was actually AMCON’s lawyer and thus could not represent GHL in a suit against AMCON.

    After referring to minutes from a July 2025 settlement meeting involving AMCON, GHL, and First Bank of Nigeria Limited, where Opasanya represented AMCON and had acted on its behalf in similar matters.

    The judge held: “The minutes, which were prepared by his law firm, Messrs. Olaniwun Ajayi LP, on their letterhead, confirmed his instructions to represent AMCON. Opasanya did not dispute this, and the Court deemed the allegation accepted as true.

    “Since Opasanya’s law firm also represents the defendant in this case, the Court found it in the interest of justice to prevent him from representing both sides,” the judge held.

    The court dismissed Opasanya’s appearance as GHL’s counsel, along with any other lawyer appointed by Seyi Akinwunmi in breach of court orders.

    The case was then adjourned to January 30 for the hearing of all pending applications.

  • AMCON repays N3.6tr to CBN, says MD

    AMCON repays N3.6tr to CBN, says MD

    Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), the government-owned agency established in 2010 to stabilize and revitalize the Nigerian financial system, has repaid about N3.6 trillion to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) since inception.

    Managing Director and CEO of the corporation, Mr. Gbenga Alade, disclosed this at a media parley in Lagos, remarking that even though it has paid N1.7 trillion to purchase the toxic assets of banks, it has been able to repay about N3.6 trillion and still owing about N3 trillion.

    He said AMCON restructured the banks by offloading toxic assets from their books and injecting fresh funds, aligning with corporate insolvency restructuring principles.

    He added that with this mechanism, bank depositors retain their deposits because they have confidence in the financial system, assuring banks’ ability to honour their obligations.

    The CEO added that AMCON then manages the acquired Eligible Bank Assets (EBAs) preparatory to their disposal.

    He noted that the law establishing AMCON upsets and reverses the contractual rights and securities law hierarchy by conferring priority to AMCON in disputes with bank debtors over collateral and contracts.

    Alade also said, as part of our recovery strategy, we have commissioned some foreign asset tracers who will help us locate where some of these obligors have hidden their assets across the globe.

    Speaking on the financial performance of the corporation since he assumed duties as the helmsman, he said the corporation recorded total revenue of N156.25 billion and total operating expenses of N29.04 billion, remarking that total operating revenue/revenue ratio was 19 per cent.

    Alade said projected total revenue for 2025 will be N215.15 billion while projected total operating expenses will be N29.06 billion, while total operating/revenue ratio will be in the region of 13.5 per cent.

    Alade said: “It is important to stress that the corporation has done tremendously well, especially when compared to other notable government-owned Asset Management Corporations around the world. “Based on the balance at purchase, AMCON outperformed other Asset Management Corporations all over the world by achieving over 87 per cent in recoveries despite the unique challenges associated with debt recovery in Nigeria.

    Read Also: FG rolls out MOFI awards for public enterprises

    “The Malaysian Danaharta, which is adjudged one of the best performing Asset Management Corporation’s, only achieved 58 per cent. The Chinese Asset Management Corporation, despite its stricter laws, achieved just 33 per cent.

    “Only the Korean Asset Management Corporation (KAMCO), South Korea, has achieved more recoveries than AMCON, with about 100 per cent. This was due to their brute force with which they chased the obligors.

    “Despite KAMCO’s recovery records, the agency is still operational to date with slight realignments in its mandate. Other noted Asset Management Corporations that have transitioned into a perpetual institution of the various governments include, China Asset Management Company, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) USA, and KFW Germany.

    “So, gentlemen, without sounding immodest, AMCON has done well, and we will not relent until all the outstanding debts are fully realized.”

    He said the current EXCO of the corporation has engaged seasoned consultants to carry out a comprehensive audit review of all AMCON cases across the Courts – the Federal High Court (FHC), which is the Court of first instance, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court.

    He said the leadership of the judiciary at the three layers of the courts share the pain of AMCON, and deeply understands the challenge that the obligors pose to AMCON.

    Consequently, all the courts have approved the New Practice Direction for AMCON debt recovery. In addition, the FHC has also created the Insolvency Units in the bid to fast-track all AMCON cases that are pending in different courts.

    The CEO also noted that the corporation’s recovery efforts have been strongly supported by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the judiciary, the CBN, the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Attorney General of the Federation, and Minister of Justice, the Board of Directors of AMCON, the EFCC, the Police, the ICPC, the National Assembly, the Media and a host of other sister agencies of government.

    He said the corporation “will continue to go about its recovery mandate with the fear of God, love of country, and complete adherence to the rule of law.

    “Let me also alert you that, as we are tightening the noose through the Courts on the obligors and deploying our strategies, most of the debtors would want to leverage the media to misinform the public.

    “Please note that most of them took the loans with no intention whatsoever to repay the debt. So, I beg you, no matter the skewed narration they peddle in the newsrooms, kindly take it with a pinch of salt, and touch base with us because we have the accurate records, which is evident in some of the landmark cases that we have won against many of the obligors.

    “Yes, the wheel of justice grinds slowly sometimes, but with patience and dedication, we have continued to make progress. Our cases have also contributed to the development of jurisprudence in the country with the publication of the first set of the AMCON Legal Compendium – a compilation of AMCON cases at both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal.”

  • Court to rule December 8 on representation dispute in GHL, AMCON suit

    Court to rule December 8 on representation dispute in GHL, AMCON suit

    Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court, Lagos, yesterday fixed December 8 for ruling on the dispute over who is legally authorised to represent General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) in a suit filed by the company against the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) and others.

    At the resumption of proceedings, Dr. Abiodun Layonu (SAN) and Oluseye Opasanya (SAN) each announced appearance for the plaintiff.

    Layonu stated that he remained the counsel on record for GHL and that he had complied with the court’s directive by filing an application and further affidavit dated December 3.

    The lawyer urged the court to affirm him as the proper legal representative of the company, arguing that AMCON’s appointment of a Receiver/Manager was made in violation of existing court orders.

    But Opasanya informed the court that AMCON had appointed Receiver/Manager over the company since September 18 and that he had exhibited the instrument of appointment in an affidavit dated December 2.

    He submitted that upon the appointment of a Receiver, the authority of the company’s directors, including the power to appoint a lawyer, became impossible, and any lawyer acting on their instruction lost authority.

    READ ALSO; Sabinus confirms amicable dissolution of marriage

    Relying on Supreme Court authority, the lawyer argued that the directors’ powers had been frozen and paralysed, and urged the court to approve the change of counsel in favour of the Receiver.

    The dispute had stalled the contempt proceedings filed by General Hydrocarbons Limited against AMCON.

    The contempt application is tied to earlier interim orders restraining AMCON from taking recovery steps against the company or interfering with its assets pending the determination of a motion, including but not limited to restraining AMCON from appointing a receiver/manager.

    The underlying suit relates to Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) 120 and 121, which were parts of a structured recovery arrangement involving First Bank of Nigeria and Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept Limited over a substantial non-performing loan. Under this arrangement, General Hydrocarbons Limited was permitted to operate the assets under a Tripartite Agreement with First Bank and AMCON, applying production revenues toward the loan repayment.

    GHL later came under scrutiny following allegations by AMCON and First Bank of operational and financial misconduct by the former management, including revenue diversion, unpaid contractors, and the risk of asset shutdown.

    Citing the urgency to protect the assets, AMCON appointed a Receiver over GHL on September 18, 2025, under Sections 34 and 48 of the AMCON Act.

    AMCON maintains that the former directors, whose powers were extinguished by the receivership, nonetheless, filed the suit without lawful authority in an attempt to obstruct the Receiver’s work.

    Since assuming control, the Receiver has taken steps to stabilise operations, while accusing the former management of attempting to misuse court orders to undermine the receivership.

    Justice Allagoa adjourned the matter to December 8, 2025, for ruling on which counsel is properly authorised to represent the plaintiff.

  • Appearance of two SANs halts court proceedings in GHL suit against AMCON

    Appearance of two SANs halts court proceedings in GHL suit against AMCON

    The appearance of two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) each claiming to have the authority to represent General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) yesterday stalled proceedings in the suit filed by the company against the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) and others.

    The matter is before Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court, Lagos.

    The confusion arose when the two lawyers — Dr. Abiodun Layonu (SAN) and Mr. Oluseye Opasanya (SAN) each announced appearance for the claimant.

    Layonu informed the court that he was representing GHL.

    Opasanya, who AMCON appointed as the Receiver/Manager over the company, also clamed to be the lawful legal representative of the claimant, given the company’s status in receivership prior to the commencement of the action which was not disclosed to the court.

    The dual appearances triggered a prolonged legal argument over who was the proper counsel authorised to speak for the company.

    Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa repeatedly sought clarification, asking both senior lawyers to identify the authentic representative of the claimant in view of the pending receivership.

    With no resolution in sight, the court directed both counsel to file formal written addresses on the issue of representation. The matter was adjourned till December 3.

    Read Also: AMCON’s stake sale shows investors’ confidence, says Unity Bank

    The disagreement over legal representation also frustrated the contempt proceedings initiated by GHL against AMCON.

    The contempt application was predicated on earlier interim orders in which Justice Lewis-Allagoa had restrained AMCON and its agents from taking any recovery steps against the company, interfering with its assets, or appointing a receiver pending the hearing of a motion.

    The underlying suit concerns Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) 120 and 121, which were granted within a structured commercial and regulatory framework aimed at assisting First Bank of Nigeria to recover a substantial non-performing loan issued to Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept Limited.

    To safeguard the repayment of the loan, described as Outstanding Exposure, the former Department of Petroleum Resources (now NUPRC) considered permitting a qualified operator to run the assets and apply production revenues towards the debt.

    It was in this context that GHL proposed to operate the two assets.

     The Tripartite Agreement signed by GHL, First Bank, and AMCON expressly stated that one of GHL’s key considerations was resolving the Outstanding Exposure, while advancing Nigeria’s economic interests. GHL undertook financial commitments and received support from First Bank and later AMCON.

    Under this framework, GHL became responsible for operating OMLs 120 and 121 and for applying production proceeds toward repayment of the exposure.

    But AMCON and First Bank later alleged serious operational and financial misconduct by GHL’s former management, including revenue diversion, chronic non-payment of contractors, operational breakdowns, and the imminent risk of demobilisation of the FPSO operator—conditions that threatened the assets with shutdown and possible licence revocation.

    Acting under sections 34 and 48 of its Act, AMCON appointed a Receiver over GHL on September 18. The appointment, by law, suspended the powers of GHL’s former directors from that date.

    Despite this, the former directors initiated the present suit in the name of the company, allegedly without lawful authority, in what AMCON describes as an attempt to obstruct the receivership.

    Since the Receiver assumed control, steps have been taken to stabilise operations and safeguard the assets. However, instead of recognising the receivership, the former directors have been accused of attempting to weaponise interim court orders obtained after the Receiver’s appointment, framing a restructuring measure as contempt aimed at undermining the Receiver and his counsel.

  • AMCON officials, lawyers face contempt charges for alleged contravention of court orders

    AMCON officials, lawyers face contempt charges for alleged contravention of court orders

    • Bala, Alade, Lamidi, Adaghe, Dan’amu served Form 48 Notice

    General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL), its directors and shareholders have commenced contempt proceedings against senior officials of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON).

    It alleged they misled the Federal High Court, Lagos and Justice Akintayo Aluko by not disclosing a substantive injunction issued by Justice A. Lewis-Allagoa of the same Federal High Court, Lagos, days earlier.

    It said Justice Lewis-Allagoa restrained them from taking any steps whatsoever towards appointing or continuing with any appointment of a Receiver over GHL.

    In a statement yesterday, GHL accused AMCON and its lawyers of failure to disclose to Justice Aluko that Justice Lewis-Allagoa had, in fact, restrained AMCON from appointing or continuing any receivership when they obtained the order ex-parte.

    GHL said they misrepresented the facts that there was an Eligible Bank Asset (EBA) issued by AMCON to GHL.

    “This is not true,” the firm said. “Indeed, AMCON made a part-payment and deposit towards a First Bank of Nigeria (FBN) EBA and made Tranche 1 payment to First Bank of Nigeria Limited (FBN), and did not make the 2nd and final payment to FBN to complete the consideration towards an EBA.

    Read Also: Wike tackles Buratai over comment on clash with naval officer

    “FBN has since offered to return this EBA deposit in Letters to AMCON and processes filed in court.

    “Instead of pursuing FBN, AMCON, for some curious and inexplicable reasons, is seeking to go after GHL, despite all their correspondence to the contrary blaming FBN, which are all before the courts.”

    The company said following this, the Form 48 – Notice of consequence of disobedience of court orders has now issued against Dr Bala Bello (Chairman of AMCON), Mr Gbenga Alade (MD of AMCON), Mr Adeshola Lamidi (ED of AMCON), Mr Lucky Adaghe (ED of AMCON), Dr Aminu Mukhtar Dan’amu (ED of AMCON), Mr Oluseyi Akinwunmi (purported Receiver appointed by AMCON), Mr Bidemi Ademola-Bello SAN (Counsel to AMCON and the MD of AMCON, who was in Court when Justice Lewis-Allagoa made the order and he undertook in open Court to abide by the orders of the Court); and  Mr Ade Adedeji SAN (Counsel to AMCON and the MD of AMCON, whose firm is representing AMCON and the MD of AMCON).

    “Justice Lewis-Allagoa has now ordered substituted service of the Contempt processes to all of the above-named persons through their official email addresses and WhatsApp phone numbers, and/or by delivering same to them at their official addresses and/or by publishing same in at least two newspapers with nationwide circulation in Nigeria, and other news media with nationwide presence in Nigeria,” GHL said in the statement by its management.

  • GHL to AMCON : you can’t appoint receiver – manager for us

    GHL to AMCON : you can’t appoint receiver – manager for us

    General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) has accused the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) of defying a subsisting court order by attempting to appoint a receiver over its assets.

    GHL, in a statement yesterday, said the move violated an interim injunction issued on September 23, by Justice Lewis Allagoa of the Federal High Court, Lagos, in Suit FHC/L/CS/1903/2025, and reinforced on October 22, in the presence of AMCON’s representatives.

    The court order, according to GHL, expressly restrained AMCON, its Managing Director, First Bank of Nigeria (FBN), the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and their agents from taking any enforcement steps against the company or its assets.

    The injunction, the statement alleged, specifically prohibited actions such as freezing GHL’s accounts, appointing a receiver or recovery agent, or seizing assets belonging to the company, its directors, or shareholders pending the determination of the substantive suit.

    Read Also: AMCON sells 34% major stake in Unity Bank to Providus Bank

    GHL described AMCON’s alleged action as a “flagrant abuse and disobedience of a valid court order”, warning that it would resist any attempt to take over its assets in accordance with the laws of the land.

    The company insisted that it was not indebted to AMCON, First Bank, or any other financial institution, stressing that it had no non-performing loans.

    “We expect institutions and government agencies to obey court orders and uphold the rule of law, not to be used as tools by private entities to intimidate or oppress innocent citizens,” GHL said.

    The firm added that it had taken the issue of its crude oil dispute to the Supreme Court in Suit SC/CV/929/2025 and filed another motion at the Federal High Court, Lagos, to set aside what it described as an “inconsistent arbitration award” in Suit FHC/L/CS/2241/2025.

    GHL disclosed that all parties in the ongoing legal battle were expected to appear before Justice Allagoa on November 11, where it plans to report what it termed a “material non-disclosure and contempt” of the court’s orders.

    The firm appelaed to its stakeholders to remain calm and be confident that justice will prevail.

  • AMCON’s stake sale shows investors’ confidence, says Unity Bank

    AMCON’s stake sale shows investors’ confidence, says Unity Bank

    Unity Bank Plc has said the successful sale of Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria’s (AMCON)’s 34 per cent equity stake in the bank showed investors confidence in the prospects of the post-merger bank.

    Unity  Bank also at the weekend , confirmed that the shares were acquired by an existing shareholder and not by Providus Bank Limited.

    The bank stated that the sale signposted stakeholders’ confidence in the future of the merger of Unity Bank with Providus Bank as the newly enlarged Providus Bank will now boasts expansive branch network across Nigeria and stronger capital adequacy ratio.

    Chairman, Unity Bank Plc, Hafiz Mohammed Bashir, made this disclosure at a court-ordered shareholders’ meeting held in Abeokuta.

    Read Also: Nigerians’ sacrifices paving way for economic renewal, says Federal Govt

    The clarification followed media reports suggesting that Providus Bank had purchased the stake in a N6.5 billion transaction involving over four billion Unity Bank shares.

    In a statement, Unity Bank confirmed that the transaction, executed on September 25, 2025, on the Nigerian Exchange (NGX), shortly after the lifting of the suspension on its shares, involved an existing investor.

     “The shares were acquired by an existing shareholder of the bank, not by Providus Bank Limited, which is currently pursuing a merger with Unity Bank,” the statement read.

    At the Court-Ordered Meeting in Abeokuta, Unity Bank shareholders overwhelmingly approved the proposed merger with Providus Bank Limited. Out of 295 shareholders who participated, 293 representing 99.32 per cent of the total shareholding valued at N4.4 billion, voted in favour of the merger resolutions.

    Under the terms of the Scheme of Merger, Unity Bank shareholders will be given two options. They may choose to receive a cash consideration of N3.18 per share, or opt for share allotment, where every 17 Unity Bank shares held will be exchanged for 18 ordinary shares of 50 kobo each in Providus Bank Limited, credited as fully paid.

    Once completed, Unity Bank’s entire share capital will be cancelled, and the bank will be dissolved without winding up. Providus Bank Limited will retain its certificate of incorporation as the surviving and enlarged entity.

    Unity Bank stressed that the merger marks a significant turning point in Nigeria’s banking landscape. The enlarged institution will combine Unity Bank’s extensive national branch network with Providus Bank’s strengths in innovation, digital banking, and customer-centric services. Together, the banks will be positioned to serve households, small and medium enterprises, corporates, and government institutions more effectively.

    The new entity will commence operations with about 230 branches nationwide, giving it one of the most expansive physical networks in the industry. It will also launch with a strong capital adequacy ratio, ensuring competitiveness under Nigeria’s evolving banking reforms.

    Commenting on these developments, Bashir noted:

    “The acquisition of AMCON’s 34% stake by an existing shareholder further strengthens confidence in Unity Bank’s future. Alongside the merger with Providus Bank, this marks the beginning of a new chapter that will deliver greater value to shareholders, customers, and the Nigerian economy.”

    Unity Bank stated that shareholders have also authorized its Directors and Solicitors to pursue all necessary court and regulatory approvals to ensure smooth implementation of the merger.