Subsidy claims: Police clears Capital Oil of allegations

on   /   in News 12:30 am   /   Comments

EVEN as the Access Bank Plc contests recent court judgment on its case with Capital Oil and Gas Industries Limited, the Special Fraud Unit, SFU, of the Nigeria Police has cleared Mr. Ifeanyi Ubah and his company of wrong doing regarding its subsidy claims.

Last August, the Presidential Committee on the Verification and Reconciliation of Fuel Subsidy Payments, which was chaired by Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede, the Managing Director of Access Bank, had indicted Capital Oil and many other oil marketing companies for various anomalies in their subsidy claims.

But Capital Oil in a statement made available to Vanguard, said Police investigations revealed that the company did not commit any crime in the subsidy claims. The statement read in part: “The clearance by the Police was contained in a letter dated February 12, 2013 written to the Minister of Finance, a copy of which was made available to us, the Inspector General of Police, Ministry of Petroleum Resources, Debt Management Office and PPPRA.”

Access Bank accused of reneging on agreements

Capital Oil explained in the statement that it was being forced to comment on the matter following moves by Access Bank to renege on the terms of agreements reached over its dispute with Access Bank and Coscharis Motors. It would be recalled that Capital Oil and Ubah, were among the first cases to be charged to court, mainly fuelled by its loan imbroglio with Access Bank, which was obtained through Coscharis Motors with the assistance of its Chief Executive, Mr. Cosmas Maduka, then a director of the bank.

Maduka had since been relieved of his directorship for flouting Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN’s rules concerning loans to bank directors. The statement read: “It was our sincere belief that Access Bank will honour the terms of settlement signed by the parties on February 9, 2013 by avoiding any further media attack against us. We are saddened to note, however, that Access Bank still gives the erroneous impression that our legal disputes with her are on-going.”

    Print       Email