Cadbury directors banned
from holding positions
…Face EFCC
From ISAAC ANUMIHE, Abuja
Monday, November 17, 2008
|
Farida
Waziri, EFCC Boss
Photo: Sun News Publishing |
| |
Investments and Securities Tribunal (IST) at the weekend
ruled that two executive directors of Cadbury Nigeria Plc,
Messrs J.S.T Bogunjoko and Biodun Jaji must pay various fines
running into billions of naira and face the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC). They were also banned from holding
directorship positions in any company over presentation of
untrue financial statements by Cadbury Nigeria Plc.
Details of fines include, N100,000 in the first instance and
a penalty of N5,000 per day from June 30, 2002 to December
14, 2006 amounting to N8,245,000 within 21 days from the date
of the decision for filing with the first respondent financial
statements that contained untrue/misleading statements, failing
which trading on its shares will be suspended.
They are also to pay a fine of N100,000 in the first instance
and a penalty of N5,000 per day from August 24, 2005 to the
date of the decision amounting to N4,855,000 within 21 days
for filing a Rights Circular for the N5 billion irredeemable
convertible loan stock which contained false/misleading statement,
failing which trading on the company’s shares will be
suspended; and they are to pay a penalty of N5,000 per day
from June 30, 2002 to December 14, 2006 amounting to N8,120,000
within 21 days from the date of the decision for failing to
provide funds in bloc for payment of dividends to its shareholders
despite the first respondent’s directive to the appellant.
In addition to that, the directors are variously disqualified
from operating in the Nigerian capital market, being employed
in the financial services sector and holding directorship
positions in any public company, amongst others.
SEC had earlier imposed the fines on the two executives in
view of the fraudulent behaviours of their officers thus prompting
them to filed an appeal with the IST on the grounds that Cadbury
plc was denied fair hearing and that the SEC did not have
the powers to impose punishments on the directors and refer
them to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The appellants had also argued that the case was founded on
breach of the right to fair hearing under the rules of natural
justice and non-compliance with the mandatory rules of procedure
in commencing and continuing the proceedings against the appellants
by SEC.
”Given the multiplicity of roles performed by the officers
of the SEC, who also constituted the APC, it was impossible
for the appellants to be accorded fair, independent and impartial
hearing by reason of the fact that the SEC and its APC were
the investigator, complainant, prosecutor and judge”
the directors further argued, insisting that their constitutional
rights were breached by the failure of SEC to adhere strictly
to Rules 2 and 3 of the Schedule VII SEC Rules and also failure
by SEC to invite the appellants to its sittings of March 27
and 28, 2008.
But SEC and APC, defending, argued that the appellants were
given several opportunities to defend themselves. They argued
that their Records of Proceedings showed that the appellants
were invited to its sitting and, indeed, did appear but refused
to participate in the proceedings.
SEC also argued that it has powers to regulate, monitor, control,
investigate, and prevent fraudulent dealing and unfair practices
in the capital market.
It also submitted that the provision of Section 36 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 provides
an opportunity for appeal against any decision the party disagrees
with, adding that since the decision of the panel was not
final and conclusive, SEC could not have breached the appellants’
constitutional right to fair hearing.
However, having heard both arguments, IST held that the appellants’
(Cadbury Nig. Plc, J.S.T Bogunjoko & Biodun Jaji) right
to fair hearing was not breached by the Respondents (SEC &
APC) at the APC’s proceedings and that SEC and APC have
the power to impose the sanctions they did on the directors
and to refer them to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) the way they did.
|