Magu Saga: Court Awards N540m Damages to Prophet Omale Against FCMB


    For what the court termed, as alleged negligence and defermation, FCMB has been ordered by a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja to pay the sum of N540million as damages to Prophet Emmanuel Omale.

    Justice Yusuf Halilu held that the First City Monument Bank, FCMB, breached its Fiduciary duty of care to Prophet Omale, which caused him to be summoned by the Judicial Panel of Inquiry investigating a former acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Ibrahim Magu, including defamation of his name.

    Omale, who is the General Overseer of Divine Hand of God Prophetic Ministries International, an inter-denominational deliverance and prophetic ministry, had filed the suit through his counsel, Gordy Uche demanding the sum of N5 billion in damages against the bank.

    According to the Prophet, the judicial panel of inquiry summoned him in July 2020 after the bank sometime in 2016, negligently and falsely in its computer system generated weekly automated report to the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit, NFIU, of a “suspicious” credit inflow of N573, 228, 040. 41 (Five Hundred and Seventy Three Million Naira, Two Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand, Forty Naira and 41 kobo) into the church’s corporate account No: 1486743019 in line with the Money Laundering Prevention Act; the Economic and Financial Crimes Act and the Terrorism Prevention Act, which mandates it to report any suspicious financial transaction of its customers.

    He said the false alert and the summons caused his name to be dragged in the mud in the media which caused him untold hardship, trauma and great financial losses, which the bank owned up in its letter published in three national newspapers.

    The judge awarded an aggravated damage of N200 million, special damage of N140, 500 million, and N200 million in general damages.

    “The conduct of the Defendant in this case, clearly from the evidence that have been made out, is certainly careless and negligent; it is certainly not careless and negligent but unprofessional”, the judge said.


    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here