Connect with us





It seems that the center would not hold much longer for the current Minister for Culture and Tourism Chief Edem Duke. As information reaching

Society Reporters NG reveals that the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan, is not happy with the minister and has

even gone as far as making moves to replace him. The president has asked members of his inner cabinet to shop for a replacement for Chief

Duke because according to a competent source, ‘the President is crossed with the always faltering Minister of Culture for the manner the minister

misled him into approving the sack of a serving Director General of a parastatal under his ministry, so as to pave way for the appointment of the

son of his close friend and business associate’.

Society Reporters NG gathered that the minister on Thursday 11 Sept 2014, announced the removal of the artistic director of the National Troupe

Mr Martin Adaji and in his place appointed Akin Adejuwon, son of his bosom friend Mr. Franklin Adejumo, as Artistic director.
Akin, a fine artist, is based in the UK and his father Dr. Franklin Adejuwon according to same source, has been a longtime associate of Edem Duke,

their friendship spans over 3 decades, and Dr. Adejuwon has pressurized Duke to use his influence and connections to secure a job for his son who

is not known to any theatre practitioner in Nigeria. In fact when the news was relayed on NTA news two days ago, none of the theatre practitioners

knew or have heard about their new Director, Akin Adejuwon, who has taken over a job meant for a theory and practically oriented theatre


We gathered reliably that Akin Adejuwon is a fine artist, and also a head of a performing arts agency when there is a national gallery of arts. And

that he infact teaches at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, Osun State.

Mr Adaji, the sacked Artistic Director, is a play creation major from the University of Ibadan, and has held many artistic positions before his

National Troupe appointment in 2011. Mr Adaji would have served out his first term in June 2015, and was even looking forward to a renewal of his

appointment because of the giant strides he has reportedly recorded, before his hasty ouster by Duke on Thursday night. Akin, his successor has

not shown up for work since his appointment, and that only means that Duke bowed to the ‘external’ pressure. Adejuwon, is said to be the brain

behind the drafting of the Miribound Tourism master plan, being spear-headed by Edem Duke. Currently, there is confusion in the arts community,

and among staff of the National Troupe. Some of them who spoke to our reporter say they will resist the attempt by Duke to appoint a non

practitioner as head of the National Troupe.

They said the minister owes them an explanation as to why a serving DG will be removed without reason. They want the President to reverse the

decision, as the troupe is a specialized agency that does not need a crony as CEO. They also said they will protest this and other appointments

the minister has made in the last two weeks. Last week, the minister appointed his Special Assistant, who is alleged to be a former staff of his

tourism agency Ms Chika Balogun, as DG of National Institute of Hospitality and Tourism Studies. He also appointed a 60 year old retired civil

servant Mrs Dayo Keshi, as DG of National Council for Arts and Culture. Mrs Keshi will be 68 by the time she serves out her tenure.

Efforts made by Society Reporters NG to reach the minister on phone proved abortive. His two lines have remained permanently switched off. But

an aide to the Minister said the appointment of Akin Adejuwon, is with immediate effect and that ‘even President Jonathan cannot reverse it, as

he is the one who authorized the removal of Mr Adajih’.

We promise to bring you more reports as soon as we lay our hands on more information.

Continue Reading


Wonderland Responds To Complaint And Reiterates Safety For Its Customers…..



A video of a parent’s complaint has come to the attention of the Management team of Wonderland Lagos at Eko Energy City, regarding a supposed open wire incident and other safety concerns.
Wonderland Lagos is a city built for the entertainment for children, families, adults as well as businesses and one of our major responsibilities is the safety of everyone who visit or work at our entertainment city.
Before Wonderland Lagos opened its doors, a risk assessment was conducted by Lagos State after which the entertainment city began to function.
While we provide spaces for various vendors, regular safety checks are conducted periodically to ensure that our vendors are adhering to our rules, regulations, and safety policies.
The supposed unfortunate incident was never reported to Wonderland Lagos Officials and was brought to our attention via social media, after which we jumped into action immediately to review our procedures and conduct our own investigations which are still ongoing.
We can assure the public that no lives have been lost at Wonderland Lagos, our safety policies are intact, the safety and leisure of our customers is our topmost priority, and we are working with all of our vendors as well as Lagos State, to ensure that Wonderland Lagos is a safe space for all of our children and families.
Children have a right to leisure, play and culture; safe parks and playgrounds are essential, and we do understand this at Wonderland Lagos. We have now requested another risk assessment to be conducted by Lagos State and after a successful approval, we will re-open.
We have unfortunately been unable to identify the child in the video. If anyone can provide us with a lead or if the parent can contact us urgently on we would be most grateful.
Wonderland Lagos will continue to strive to ensure “safe and high quality” service to all of its customers.
Thank you for your concern and patronage.
Mr. Ezekiel Adamu
Wonderland Lagos
Wonderland Management

Continue Reading


Standard Chartered Bank In N890.9million Tax Liabilities Saga …the EFCC and RMAFC Connection



Standard Chartered Bank Nigeria Limited has approached a federal high court in Lagos urging the court to declare that Value Added Tax VAT and withholding Tax WHT liabilities by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), as illegal, and of no effect whatsoever.

The Bank is also urging the court to  declare that the Federal Inland Revenue Service is the sole agency of the Federal Government statutorily empowered to administer, assess, collect and enforce the payment of, Federal taxes (including VAT and WHT due to the Federal Government) pursuant to the Value Added Tax Act, Companies Income Tax Act and other tax statutes enumerated in the First Schedule to the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act.

The Bank in amended Statement of Claim filed before the court by its lawyer, Chukwuka Ikwuazom, SAN, is contending that the Federal Inland Revenue Service cannot abdicate these statutory functions to the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission RMAFC and Economic and financial commission EFCC who are 1st and 2nd defendants respectively in this suit

The Bank stated that, sometime in 2016, the RMAFC, in the purported exercise of it’s powers allegedly donated to it by the Federal Inland Revenue Service, commenced what it described as “verification and reconciliation of revenue collections and remittances” by banks (including the Plaintiff) on behalf of the Federal Inland Revenue Service and the Nigeria Customs Service for the period between 2008 and June 2012.

It stated that the Defendant, without any factual or legal basis, issued a demand notice demanding from the Bank a whooping sum of N20,701,648,351.40 (Twenty billion, seven hundred and one million six hundred and forty-eight thousand three hundred and fifty-one Naira and forty kobo) which the RMAFC claimed to be unremitted Value Added Tax (“VAT”), and Withholding Tax (“WHT”) due to the Federal Government from the bank for 2008 to June 2012 financial years.

The bank objected to the RMAFC authority to issue the demand notice, it not being the agency of the Federal Government statutorily empowered to administer, collect and enforce tax obligations on behalf of the Federal Government.

The bank further objected to the demand notice on the ground that the bank did not owe the alleged tax liability contained in it.

The Bank maintained that, at the time of the issuance of the said demand notice, it has fully discharged its tax obligations to the Federal Inland Revenue Service for the relevant years (2008 to June 2012) and the Federal Inland Revenue Service, which had concluded a tax audit of the bank, had not \ issued any additional assessment of tax to the bank

But, the RMAFC allegedly acting through its agents, Messrs. Dele Olaniyan & Co. and Aikosi Festus & Co., disregarded the bank’s objections and continued to pursue the recovery of the purported VAT and WHT liabilities.

Following several invitations of employees of the bank to the offices of the EFCC at No. 154 Awolowo Road, Ikoyi, Lagos and threats of arrest and detention of its senior employees, the bank reluctantly agreed to engage with the RAMFC consultants on the alleged unremitted VAT and WHT.

Following several invitations of employees of the bank to the offices of the EFCC at No. 154 Awolowo Road, Ikoyi, Lagos and threats of arrest and detention of its senior employees, the bank reluctantly agreed to engage with the RAMFC consultants on the alleged unremitted VAT and WHT.

It stated that as a result of the 1st Defendant’s illegal verification exercise and unlawful and baseless demand for unremitted VAT  and WHT, the bank has suffered and continues to suffer inconvenience and incur costs by its engagement of tax consultant and legal counsel as well as trips made by its officers to the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ offices.

The bank further stated it has suffered untold hardship and intimidation by the  Defendants in respect of the repeated demands for payment of WHT and VAT, which is clearly outside the statutory powers of the Defendants

Consequently, the Bank is praying the court for a declaration that it is unlawful for the RMAFC and EFCC to usurp the statutory functions of administration, assessment, collection, and enforcement of payment of federal taxes (including VAT and WHT due to the Federal Government) which functions are vested upon the Federal inland Revenue Service pursuant to the Value Added Tax Act, Companies Income Tax Act and other tax Statutes enumerated in the First Schedule to the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment)

The bank is seeking the following declarative orders.

A declaration that it is unlawful for the 1st Defendant to bypass the statutory powers under the Companies Income Tax Act, Value Added Tax Act, and the Federal inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act for resolving a tax dispute and to procure the EFCC to harass, threaten, intimidate and coerce the bank into paying VAT, WHT, or indeed any other tax liability which the bank. genuinely disputes.

‘’A declaration that the conduct of the defendants has deprived the bank of the statutory procedure for challenging tax assessments as provided under the Companies Income Tax Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, the Federal inland Revenue Services Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, and the Value Added Tax Act.

‘’A Declaration that the 1st Defendant’s demand of the sum of N890,931,432.00 (Eight Hundred and Ninety Million, Nine Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand Four Hundred and ThirtyTwo Naira) as VAT and WHT liabilities from the bank in furtherance of its purported “Verification and Reconciliation of Revenue Collections and Remittances” exercise, is premised on an illegal process and therefore invalid, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the 1st Defendant’s demand on the bank for the sum of N890,931,432.00  as VAT and WHT allegedly collected on behalf of, but not remitted to the Federal Government for the period from July 2012 to December 2015 as communicated vide the 1st  Defendant’s letter dated 29″ April 2019.

However RAMFC it’s statement of defence and counter claim filed before the court by its counsel Chief Godwin Obla SAN denies

almost all the claims of  Standard Chartered bank and states that the bank’s averments thereof are self-serving, half-truths and therefore puts the bank to the strict proofs of the averments thereof.

In further reaction to the foregoing paragraphs thereof. RAMFC states that prior to the commencement of the its Defendant’s verification exercise, it invited all banks to its headquarters on the 29th of November, 2016 to sensitize and educate them of its constitutional mandate thereof to pursue the exercise.

In specific reaction to  the Statement of Claim, RAMFC states that the consultants, before the commencement of the verification exercise held a commencement meeting with the bank at the bank’s head office in Lagos, wherein RAMFC’s consultants further apprised the bank of it’s letter requesting to provide all relevant documents required for the verification exercise.

The bank requested to sight any letter of authorisation and introduction by the Federal Inland Revenue Service’s as a precondition to releasing any of the documents requested for verification.

Despite the Federal Inland Revenue Service’s letter, as aforesaid, requesting the bank to release all relevant documents to enable it’s consultants to carry out their verification exercise, the bank was adamant and refused to provide the required documents as requested. It became obvious that consequent on the bank’s refusal to release the required relevant documents for the verification exercise, RAMFC subsequently resorted to the alternative approach through the bank’s own published audited Financial Statements, and bank’s Pay Direct Platform, to form best of judgment opinion and to come up with a report on the 18th of April, 2018 indicating a liability of unpaid remittances in the sum of N6, 069, 844, 000.00.

Rather than furnishing the RAMFC’s  consultants with documents to show evidence of any transaction as proof of payment of remittances within the accounting period verified against them by the  RAMFCs consultant, to establish the basis of their objection, the bank became evasive and rather requested to know how the RAMFC arrived at its computation.

By a letter dated the 22nd of May 2017, the bank came up with technical objection that all that the RAMFC’s consultant findings were not unremitted collectables but were tax avoidance and requested a discharge from the liabilities for payment of the sum of N6, 069, 844, 00. 000. on the basis of a claim that  its books for the period  had been audited and found no such outstanding liabilities.

The bank  pressed for further reconciliation meeting, and whereupon, on the 29th of August, 2017, both the RAMFC consultant and the bank agreed on a few things but could not reach a consensus on several others as the bank failed to produce relevant documents.

Further reconciliation was held at the instances of the bank on the 11th of April 2018, on request that it be granted another opportunity to review fees, commissions and Work in progress to satisfy itself that non-Vatable items are not included,

Despite all of the efforts by the RAMFC  to accommodate the bank’s hecklings and volte-faces after every reconciliation, RAMFC yet obliged the bank another reconciliation after the bank had objected to the outstanding collectable liabilities of N3, 718, 106, 000.00

Consequently, RAMFC issued the  bank a demand notice reflecting the outcome of the reconciliation in the liabilities of N1, 073, 718, 663.74. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) swooped in as a stakeholder when the bank became recalcitrant on meeting these liabilities after infractions had been established.

However, in a strange twist, the bank, by a letter dated the 27th of December 2018 agreed to the liabilities of tax evasion in the sum of N43, 689, 000 in respect of Value-Added Tax (VAT) and additional sum of N141, 012, 000 for Withholding Tax (WHT), totalling N184, 701, 000. 00, and proceeded to pay the total amount into the Recovery Account, leaving a total outstanding balance of N889, 017, 663. 74 unpaid.

Rather than paying up the outstanding balance, bank continued in its antics of unending objections thereafter, objecting even to the outstanding balance.

Afters, considering the sum of N184,701,000 already paid by the plaintiff the sum of N 752,414,250.23 was left as the outstanding liabilities against the bank.

RAMFC avers that the Plaintiff suit is an attempt to use the machinery of justice to avoid its mandatory statutory obligation to the Nigeria state.

However in it’s counter claim RAMFC relying on it’s statement of defence and it’s witness deposition prays the court for the following reliefs:

A declaration that by the reconciliation meeting held in Abuja between RAMFC and the bank on the 4th of October 2018, pursuant to its review exercise on accruals, to and disbursement from, the Federation Account, the liabilities of the bank is in the sum of N1, 073, 713, 718, 663. 74 (One Billion, Seventy-Three Million, Seven Hundred and Eighteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Three Naira Seventy-Four Kobo) being the unpaid remittances to the Federation Account as unearthed in the Reconciliation Meeting remains valid, true and represents the true state of the bank’s liabilities to the Federation Account.

A declaration that by the earlier initial part-payment of the sum of N184, 701, 000. 00 made by the bank pursuant to the RAMFC review exercise, the bank still has balance of liabilities of unpaid remittances from taxes, penalty and interests due for payment to Federation Account of the Federal Government of Nigeria in the sum of N889, 017, 663. 74 (Eight Hundred and Eighty-Eight

Million, Seventeen Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Six Hundred, Seventy-Four Kobo)

An order of the Court directing the Plaintiff to pay the sum of N889, 017,663. 74 (Eight Hundred and Eighty-Eight Million, Seventeen Thousand, Six Hundred and sixty six thousand seventy-four Kobo being the balance of liabilities of unpaid remittances from taxes due for payment to Federation Account of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

Interest on the said sum at prevailing interest rates fixed by the Central Bank of Nigeria from the time payment was due and 10% interest until the sum is liquidated.

Meanwhile, the presiding Judge, Lewis Allagoa has adjourned till next year for hearing to commence.

Continue Reading


Senator Albert Bassey Jailed 42Years for Money Laundering



Albert Bassey, senator representing Akwa Ibom North East at the National Assembly, was on December 1, 2022 convicted and sentenced to 42 years imprisonment by Justice Agatha Okeke of the Federal High Court sitting in Uyo, Akwa Ibom state. The court found him guilty of six-count of money laundering preferred against him by the EFCC.

Senator Bassey was prosecuted by the anti-graft agency on allegation of receiving vehicle valued at N204 million as bribe from companies linked to one Olajide Omokore, a contractor who executed a N3billion contract for the Government of Akwa Ibom State whilst Senator Bassey was Commissioner for finance and Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial Direct Labour Coordinating Committee

The offence contravenes Section 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and is punishable under Section 15 (3) of the same Act.

One of the charges against the senator reads, “That you, Albert Bassey, whilst being the Commissioner for Finance, Akwa Ibom State and Chairman of Akwa Ibom State Inter-Ministerial Direct Labour Coordinating Committee, IMDLCC sometime in December 2012, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, indirectly took possession of a vehicle (Infinity QX 56 BP) valued at N45,000,000.00 at the instance of one Olajide Jones Omokore (whose companies had contracts with Akwa Ibom State Government at that material time), when you reasonably ought to have known that the said vehicle formed part of proceed of unlawful activity (to wit: corruption) and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15 (3) of the same Act”.

Upon arraignment, the senator pleaded not guilty to the charges setting the stage for his full trial.

Continue Reading