In a bid to uphold judicial authority and maintain its reputation, the Sterling Bank Limited has formally petitioned the Inspector General of Police (IGP) in Nigeria, seeking justice against Miden Systems Limited and its director, Dr. Brendan Innocent Usoro.
This action came in response to what the bank alleged to be “fraudulent tactics and harassment” by Usoro. The bank argued that the actions of Miden Systems and its director were aimed at sidestepping a Federal High Court ruling requiring the settlement of outstanding debts.
A press release from the bank stated that on October 18, 2021, the Federal High Court ruled against Miden Systems Ltlimited, mandating adherence to a binding debt settlement agreement.
The bank added that despite acknowledging their debt, Usoro and his company have allegedly engaged in schemes to evade compliance, misappropriating funds, manipulating corporate structures to protect assets, and resorting to intimidation tactics against Sterling’s executives.
“The actions of Miden Systems and Dr. Usoro are a blatant assault on justice,” declared Sterling Bank. “We are committed to holding the debtor accountable for their financial responsibilities.”
Legal counsel to the bank, Kunle Ogunba, SAN, had outlined in the petition submitted on December 10, 2024, the allegations against Usoro, including alleged diversion of loan funds for personal use and abusive legal manoeuvres designed to obstruct enforcement of the court’s ruling.
The bank’s petition also drew attention to a purported recent intimidation efforts aimed at its officials, allegedly orchestrated by Usoro’s associates in conjunction with the Nigeria Police Force CID. The Sterling Bank urged the public to disregard unfounded accusations emerging from Miden Systems Limited, clarifying that deductions from the company’s account were carried out under an agreement sanctioned by the court.
The press release stated further that Federal High Court had rebuffed Miden Systems Limited’s latest attempt to overturn the ruling on November 20, 2024, citing abuse of process and further solidifying the validity of the initial judgment.