The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos on Wednesday has reaffirmed its earlier order restraining parties from taking further steps in respect of criminal allegations made against Sterling Bank Limited and some of its top executives, pending the determination of a substantive suit before the court.
Justice D. E. Osiagor reiterated the order when the matter, Suit No. FHC/L/CS/158/2025 between Sterling Bank Limited and five others as plaintiffs and the House of Representatives and four others as defendants, came up before the court at the Lagos Judicial Division.
At the hearing, counsel for the plaintiffs, Femi Falana, SAN, Funmi Falana, SAN and Taiwo E. Olawanle, appeared for Sterling Bank and the other plaintiffs. L. M. Alozie, SAN, appeared for the 4th defendant, while Sylvester Azubuike represented the 5th defendant.
Other defendants were represented by their respective counsel.
Justice Osiagor restated the subsisting order of the court directing that no further steps should be taken in furtherance of the criminal allegations made against the bank and its officials until the substantive suit challenging the actions of the defendants is determined.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter to May 11, 2026 for further proceedings.
The suit was filed by Sterling Bank Limited, Sterling Holding Company and some executives of the bank to challenge the powers of the House of Representatives Committee on Public Petitions to investigate issues arising from a banker–customer dispute between the bank and Miden Systems Limited and its principal, Dr. Innocent Brendan Usoro.
According to the plaintiffs, the dispute originated from a loan facility of about $17,079,000 granted to Miden Systems Limited in 2009. The bank stated that the facility was later restructured after the borrowers allegedly failed to meet their repayment obligations.
Following the alleged default, Sterling Bank commenced recovery proceedings which culminated in a consent judgment of the Federal High Court where the borrowers reportedly admitted liability in the sum of about $31.3 million.
Despite the subsisting judgment and other pending court proceedings relating to the debt, the plaintiffs alleged that petitions were subsequently filed before the House of Representatives Committee on Public Petitions, which prompted the committee to initiate investigations and led to criminal complaints being referred to law enforcement authorities against the bank and some of its officials.
In the suit before the Federal High Court, the plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the National Assembly has the constitutional power to investigate or summon private individuals and corporate bodies in matters not connected with its law-making functions, and whether such investigations can lawfully proceed while the issues in dispute are already the subject of pending court proceedings.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs drew the attention of the court to its earlier order made on July 18, 2025, directing that no further steps should be taken in furtherance of the criminal allegations against the bank and its executives pending the determination of the suit.
The court was informed that, notwithstanding the subsisting order, certain criminal complaints and related actions had allegedly been initiated in connection with the dispute.
After hearing counsel, Justice Osiagor reaffirmed the earlier directive restraining all parties from taking further steps in respect of the criminal allegations against the bank and its officials pending the determination of the substantive issues before the court.
