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

A former attorney-general of Imo State, Chuckwuma-Machukwu Ume (SAN), has threatened legal actions against Polaris Bank for allegedly withholding a loan facility of N868 million to a customer, Kenchez Nigeria Limited.

In a demand letter addressed to the managing director of the bank dated September 15, 2025, Ume further threatened to report the bank to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and other relevant regulators, including the National Deposit Insurance Company (NDIC) of the alleged financial misconduct.

The senior lawyer also demanded a refund of N16, 206,860.66 representing the first month’s interest, which his client has paid to Lecon Finance Company Limited, on the withheld loan facility.

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

However, long after the loan was paid to Polaris Bank, which acted as the guarantor, it has refused to release the company even after satisfying all the preconditions by the bank, including perfecting a legal mortgage over its property in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.

This is after several demand letters by the company requesting the utilisation of the guaranteed funds or a refund of the same to Lecon Finance Company Limited, which have not been acted upon by the bank.

Ume noted that by holding unto funds earmarked for a defined purpose, “your bank has acted contrary to section 13 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) 2020, mandating banks to conduct their operations in accordance with sound banking practices, and in breach of the CBN Consumer Protection Regulations, 2019, which requires fairness, transparency, and good faith in dealings with customers.

In addition, he stated, “Your bank is already violating both sections 7 of the Money Laundering Act and 34 of the EFCC Act, as it cannot unilaterally freeze our client’s account or prevent it access to its account outside the rule of law.”