Federal High Court Reaffirms Order Restraining Criminal Allegations Against Sterling Bank
Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, has restated an earlier order restraining parties from pursuing criminal allegations against Sterling Bank Limited and some of its senior executives, pending the determination of a substantive suit before the court.
The matter, Suit No. FHC/L/CS/158/2025, was brought by Sterling Bank Limited, Sterling Holding Company, and certain executives of the bank against the House of Representatives and four others. At the hearing, Femi Falana, SAN, and Funmi Falana, SAN appeared for the plaintiffs; L.M. Alozie, SAN represented the 4th defendant, while Sylvester Azubuike appeared for the 5th defendant. Other defendants were represented by their respective counsel.
Justice Osiagor reiterated that no further steps should be taken in relation to the criminal complaints until the substantive suit challenging the actions of the defendants is resolved. The matter was adjourned to 11 May 2026 for continuation.
The plaintiffs contend that the House of Representatives Committee on Public Petitions exceeded its constitutional powers by investigating a banker–customer dispute between Sterling Bank and Miden Systems Limited, arising from a loan facility of about $17,079,000 granted in 2009. The facility was later restructured, but following alleged default, Sterling Bank obtained a consent judgment of the Federal High Court in which the borrowers admitted liability in the sum of approximately $31.3 million.
Despite the subsisting judgment and pending recovery proceedings, petitions were reportedly filed before the Committee, leading to criminal complaints being referred to law enforcement agencies against the bank and its officials.
In their suit, the plaintiffs seek judicial clarification on whether the National Assembly possesses constitutional authority to investigate or summon private individuals and corporate bodies in matters not connected to its law‑making functions, and whether such investigations can proceed while the same issues are already before the courts.
Justice Osiagor, after hearing counsel, reaffirmed the subsisting order restraining all parties from taking further steps in respect of the criminal allegations until the substantive issues are determined.
