Imo Ex-Attorney-General Asks Bank To Release Customer’s N868m Loan Facility

A erstwhile attorney-general of Imo State, Chuckwuma-Machukwu Ume (SAN), has threatened ineligible actions against Polaris Bank for allegedly withholding a indebtedness installation of N868 cardinal to a customer, Kenchez Nigeria Limited.

In a request missive addressed to the managing manager of the slope dated September 15, 2025, Ume further threatened to study the slope to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and different applicable regulators, including the National Deposit Insurance Company (NDIC) of the alleged fiscal misconduct.

The elder lawyer besides demanded a refund of N16, 206,860.66 representing the archetypal month’s interest, which his lawsuit has paid to Lecon Finance Company Limited, connected the withheld indebtedness facility.

The missive explained that Kenchez Nigeria Limited, which has been banking with Polaris Bank Limited for 22 years, had applied and obtained the indebtedness from Lecon Finance Company Limited to get a 160-tonne Terex Demag AC160-2 Crane for its operational activities.

However, agelong aft the indebtedness was paid to Polaris Bank, which acted arsenic the guarantor, it has refused to merchandise the institution adjacent aft satisfying each the preconditions by the bank, including perfecting a ineligible owe implicit its spot successful Port Harcourt, Rivers State.

This is aft respective request letters by the institution requesting the utilisation of the guaranteed funds oregon a refund of the aforesaid to Lecon Finance Company Limited, which person not been acted upon by the bank.

Ume noted that by holding unto funds earmarked for a defined purpose, “your slope has acted contrary to conception 13 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) 2020, mandating banks to behaviour their operations successful accordance with dependable banking practices, and successful breach of the CBN Consumer Protection Regulations, 2019, which requires fairness, transparency, and bully religion successful dealings with customers.

In addition, helium stated, “Your slope is already violating some sections 7 of the Money Laundering Act and 34 of the EFCC Act, arsenic it cannot unilaterally frost our client’s relationship oregon forestall it entree to its relationship extracurricular the regularisation of law.”