A former senator representing Kebbi Central, Farouk Bello Bunza, has criticised the decision of the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) to revoke the sale of a Banana Island property valued at N4.5 billion, describing the action as unjustified and inconsistent with the terms of the transaction.
Bunza said he would challenge the revocation in court, arguing that NDIC’s decision was not supported by either the original contract he executed with the defunct Heritage Bank or subsequent correspondence issued by the corporation.
He questioned whether the revocation was based on the original agreement with Heritage Bank or on an NDIC letter dated September 23, noting that NDIC had reportedly admitted it lacked the legal authority to void the original contract.
According to the former lawmaker, the September 23 letter did not constitute a new agreement but merely outlined NDIC’s position and the steps required to conclude the transaction. These, he said, included payment of N4.76 billion for the property, recognition of his earlier N833 million deposit paid nearly three years earlier, settlement of N1.7 billion in alleged outstanding rental obligations, payment of a N2.148 billion balance within six months, and execution of a deed of undertaking.
Bunza stated that he complied fully with all the stated requirements and went further by paying the outstanding N2.148 billion immediately, rather than within the six-month period indicated in the letter. He added that he also executed the deed of undertaking within the stipulated time and that all actions were acknowledged by NDIC.
He disputed claims by the NDIC Managing Director that he had requested 36 months to clear the balance, insisting that payment was made through Coronation Merchant Bank within 24 hours of NDIC’s confirmation of the outstanding amount, following assurances that the property’s title documents would be released upon payment.
Addressing concerns over title documentation, Bunza accused NDIC of withholding critical information, questioning why alleged issues with the documents were not disclosed for nearly two years and only raised after full payment had been made.
He also dismissed NDIC’s explanation that letters confirming payment were issued by junior officers, describing the claim as contradictory since the same officers were later involved in communicating the corporation’s retraction.
Bunza further challenged NDIC’s justification for a downward revaluation of the property, allegedly linked to sea reclamation, arguing that the land size had instead been reduced due to the construction of an access road.
According to him, the alleged disappearance of title documents could only be associated with attempts to regularise what he described as illegal alterations at the lands registry.
“All these issues will be presented before the court,” Bunza said, reaffirming his intention to seek judicial redress over what he described as an unjustified revocation of the transaction.
Post comments (0)