Recently the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan gave his assent to the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria, (AMCON) Act 2010 and it has hence become a regulating force on every transaction that has to do with the banking sector and the apex bank.

But as good as the intention of the legislature could be on the said Act, it has been receiving several critiques from different quarters of the country on the ground that the Act is inconsistent and that it is targeted to achieve selfish end.

Among those who opposed the provisions of AMCON Act were the shareholders of banks and a rights group, Truth and Transparency Initiative.

In view of the inconsistencies the two bodies through their counsel, Nnodo Okeke has filed a suit at the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja challenging the Act and praying the court to declare same as null and void.

Joined as defendants in the suit were the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Attorney General of Federation (AGF), the President of the Senate, the Speaker, House of Representatives, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria.

The plaintiffs in the suit has approached the court to determine whether the entire provision of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria Act 2010 is inconsistent with the requirement of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and the Fundamental Rights provision of the 1999 Constitution especially the right to fair hearing and therefore null and void.

Furthermore ,the court is being asked to determine whether the provisions requirements of the Act is repugnant to common sense, inhibits the spirit of free and commercial enterprise and therefore illegal, null and void.

The court is also to determine whether the Act is  such that will inhibit entrepreneurship, business and commercial practice and whether its enactment is ultra vires the powers of the National Assembly as being inconsistent with the requirement of fair hearing as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and therefore null and void.

In addition, the court will be expected to determine whether the Act in so far as it does not give banks or their shareholders or directors the opportunity to be heard in the deliberations of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria concerning the banks is not null and void.

The Shareholders also want the court to determine whether the Act in so far as it does not give the banks, their shareholders or directors a hearing as to the classification of “eligible bank assets” and whether the Act is in so far as the sole determination of “eligible bank assets” of banks is the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria without opportunity to the banks to be heard on the qualification of its asset as “eligible banks assets” is not constitutional, null and void.

Another question the court is expected to determine is whether Act in so far as Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria will acquire the assets of a bank without any input or hearing from the bank as to whether the asset of the bank should be classified as “eligible bank asset” or whether the asset is such that should be acquired by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria is not unconstuitutional, null and void.

Also the court will determine whether the Act in so far as the banks do not have a say in the classification and acquisition of the assets of the banks by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria and whether the Act in so far does not require a representation from a bank as to whether the asset of the bank should be classified as “eligible bank asset” or whether the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria should acquire the asset of the bank as “eligible bank asset” is not unconstitutional, null and void.

Finally the court will be determining whether the Act in so far as it defines “debt” to mean performing loan and performing loan can be classified as “eligible bank asset” is not illegal against the tenets of banking and commercial practice, crude, primitive, absurd and repugnant to common sense.

Should the court answer the interrogatories in the affirmative, the plaintiffs will be seeking an order of the court to declare that the entire Act is inconsistent with the requirement of the 1999 Constitution and that of the Fundamental Rights  especially the right to fair hearing and therefore null and void.

The plaintiffs will also be praying the court to declare the provisions requirements of the Act as repugnant to common sense, inhibits the spirit of free and commercial enterprise and that such will inhibit entrepreneurship, business and commercial practice and therefore unacceptable in any reasonable society, absurd and null and void.

The court will also be expected to declare that the enactment of the Act is ultra vires the powers of the National Assembly as being inconsistent with the requirement of fair hearing as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and that the provisions of the Act falls short of the constitutional requirement of fair hearing as enshrined in the 1999 constitution and therefore null and void.

A declaration of the court is further sought that the Act particularly Part IV thereof is repugnant to natural justice, common sense, absurd, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and to this end the plaintiffs prayed the court for an injunction restraining the defendants particularly the 1st, 2nd and 5th defendants from taking actions or steps towards or pursuant to the implementation or application of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria Act 2010 as presently constituted or enacted.

Going by the above questions for determination and declarations sought by the plaintiffs, legal practitioners were of the opinion that a couple of inconsistencies exist in the Act, for instance the Act does not give banks or their shareholders or directors the opportunity to be heard in deliberations of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria, at the same time it does not give them the opportunity to be heard as to the classification of “eligible bank asset.”