The court presided over by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba made the pronouncement in a judgment delivered in a suit filed against the CBN over alleged imposition of discriminatory bank charges on some categories of cash depositors.
Depositors affected by the said discriminatory policy were those lodging N500,000 above in bank accounts domiciled in selected six states and the FCT.
A legal practitioner, Chijioke Ifediora, who was a victim of the CBN discriminatory policy decided to challenge its legality and filed Suit FHC/AWK/CS/91/2020, arguing that the discriminatory bank charges was ultra vires, illegal and unconstitutional.
The CBN had in line with its cashless policy initiatives, imposed the contentious charges via two separate Circulars, BPS/DIR/GEN/CIR/04/004 and PSM/DIR/CON/CWO/02/014 dated 20th April 2017 and 17th September 2019 respectively.
But the plaintiff had urged the court to consider the provisions of Sections 1 (3 ) , 2 ( 1) and Section 42 of the constitution of Nigeria, 1999 ( as amended), in order to determine whether the said two CBN circulars were not discriminatory, ultra vires, unconstitutional and illegal.
He had stated that he took the decision to drag the CBN to court when on January 7th, 2020, he went to a bank at Amawbia Awka, Anambra State, to make cash lodgment of N600,000 into his account. According to him, a bank official told him that he would not be allowed to effect the deposit without paying the charge in accordance with the CBN circular PSM/DIR/CON/CWO/02/014.
He, therefore, asked the court to grant him three reliefs, namely, that the said two CBN circulars were ultra vires, unconstitutional and illegal and were in conflict with Section 1(3), Section 2(1) and Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.
The third relief sought by the plaintiff is that the charges emanating from the implementation of the two CBN Circulars are illegal and unlawful.
Consequently, the plaintiff urged the court to make five Declaratory Orders compelling the CBN to refund illegal or unlawful charges imposed on all citizens and corporate bodies operating in Anambra, who were victims of the implementation of the said circulars. Others included the refund of all citizens and corporate bodies operating in Anambra, Abia, Lagos, Ogun, Kano, Rivers and FCT who were also allegedly made to pay the illegal or unlawful charges by the implementation of the CBN circulars; order a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant (CBN) from publishing or issuing circulars or implementing similar policies that are discriminatory or in conflict with Section 42 of the constitution, restraining all financial institutions and deposit money banks from implementing similar discriminatory policies and lastly, direct the CBN to make a reversal publication of the implementation of the said circulars in five national newspapers indicating compliance with the Decision of Court and refund of the unlawful charges.
In his submission, counsel for the CBN, Chief Musa M. Tolani, an Aba-based legal practitioner, argued that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to file the Suit, describing him as a meddlesome interloper, since he did not have the authority of all the citizens and corporate institutions residing in the affected states.
He also stated that the plaintiff failed to show how the policy affected him injuriously more than the rest of the residents of the states being sought to be protected.
Tolani added that the policy was introduced to facilitate the implementation of the CBN well intentioned and worthy cashless policy for the overall well-being of the federation economy.
However, delivering his judgment, Justice Dimgba was inclined to agree with the plaintiff that the CBN policy was discriminatory ab initio before its eventual general application across the federation, hence the suit was challenging the lawfulness of the action of the CBN, which is a federal government agency
Though he agreed with the plaintiff on the first three reliefs sought and affirmed that the CBN policy was discriminatory and offended section 42 of the 1999 constitution (as amended) the judge declined to grant the five consequential Orders.
Justice Nnamdi explained that the refusal to grant the five consequential orders were no longer necessary since it was admitted during oral evidence that the CBN policy is now implemented nationwide.
