•Phtoto: Sun News Publishing

More Stories on This Section

The Managing Consultant Forensic Consulting Limited Mr Ori Adeyemo, has faulted the Central Bank of Nigeria's position on who bears the brunt of a dishonoured cheque, spelt out in section 10 (F) of defunct Bankers Tariff, to the effect that a bank is allowed to charge N1000 for a returned corporate cheque and N300 for a personal cheque, all of which were to be borne by the drawer.

Mr Adeyemo who spoke to Daily Sun last week on the vexed issue said the apex bank was wrong to have inserted the provision in the bankers tarrif, thereby creating an opportunity for a bank to penalize both the drawer and drawee who never took value on the instrument, stressing it was a breach of the 1977 dishonoured cheque Act.

According to him a returned cheque is a criminal offence, and that only the injured party which is the drawee( supposed beneficiary) has the right to complain when a cheque is returned to the Nigerian Police or the EFCC rather than the bank where the instrument was lodged.

He argued that under the circumstance, a returned cheque fee should be a penalty that ought to be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, as no party to the transaction was competent to do so.
Adeyemo noted for instance that a bank has no pecuniary interest in a returned cheque which he described as a clearing vehicle for a deposited cheque.

According to the dishonoured cheque Act of 1977, an offender will upon conviction be liable to two year jail term, without an option of fine, for an individual, while a corporate body will be liable to a fine of N5000.

He therefore concluded that since Section 11(6) of the subsisting CBN Guide to Bank Charges, as it relates
to a bank charging its customers returned cheque fee is in breach of the dishononured cheque Act being a legislation of the National Assembly, the dishonoured Cheque offences Act will prevail.
Adeyemo therefore called for a thorough review of the CBN Guide to Bankers Charges, to reflect the opinion of all stakeholders, stressing that allowing the present instrument to continue would amount to making bankers laws unto themselves, by taking over the role of the judiciary.