Former Chairman of the Governing Board of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Dr Muiz Banire (SAN), has demanded an immediate retraction of a publication by online platform, PointBlank News, which accused him and other lawyers of collecting millions of dollars in bribes to influence court judgments.
Banire warned that failure to retract the publication would compel him to institute a defamation lawsuit against the publisher and editors of the platform.
In a pre-action demand letter written through his counsel, Adeyinka Patrick Olumide-Fusika, SAN, and obtained by Naijaonpoint, Banire described the report titled “$2 Billion Bank Debt: Nestoil, Neconde Demand $40 Million Refund from Lawyers After Supreme Court Defeat” as false, malicious and gravely defamatory.
The letter was addressed to the publisher of PointBlank News, Jackson Ude; Senior Editor (Africa), Ben Young; and Nigeria Editor, Uduma Mba.
The publication alleged that Banire received part of an alleged $40m paid to lawyers to secure a favourable Supreme Court judgment in a debt dispute involving Nestoil Limited and Neconde Energy Limited.
It also claimed that Banire participated in a separate scheme at the Federal High Court, alleging that $5m was paid to influence an order vacating asset-freezing directives connected to a $1bn debt.
According to the letter, the publication conveyed imputations of conspiracy, bribery, fraud and attempt to pervert the course of justice, offences punishable under Nigerian criminal law.
Olumide-Fusika stated that Banire, who is widely known for his advocacy against corruption and for reforms aimed at restoring public confidence in the judiciary and legal profession, was deeply pained to be associated with what he described as “nefarious activities and serious crimes.”
He faulted the report for relying on unnamed sources, including an unidentified “reporter” and an “insider,” without presenting any evidence to support the allegations.
Banire challenged PointBlank News to publish verifiable proof of the alleged transactions if they indeed occurred.
He insisted that even if bribery was not carried out openly, the purported source must possess evidence of the alleged $40m paid to lawyers and the $5m allegedly collected to influence a court order.
Failing the production of such evidence, Banire said he would have no option but to commence a defamation action against the publisher and editors of the platform.
Banire also clarified the true position of events at the Supreme Court in Neconde Energy Limited v. FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited & four others (SC/CV/1130/2025).
He said his only appearance in the matter was on January 12, 2026, and that proceedings on that day were limited strictly to the issue of legal representation for some of the parties.
According to him, the Supreme Court did not hear or determine any substantive issue relating to the alleged debt.
A Certified True Copy of the ruling delivered on that date, attached to the letter, showed that the court merely adjourned the applications pending the determination of a related appeal at the Court of Appeal.
The ruling stated that the issue of representation, already before the Court of Appeal, had to be resolved before the Supreme Court could proceed to hear the parties.
Banire said the ruling clearly contradicted the publication’s suggestion that the Supreme Court ruled on the substantive dispute or that any lawyer collected money to secure a favourable outcome.
He added that the reliance on unnamed sources suggested the platform may have been misled, either deliberately or otherwise.
Banire demanded an immediate retraction of the publication and reserved all his rights under the law.