Fraud allegation: Okupe drags Benue government to court

Also joined in the suit before the Benue State High Court, Makurdi, dated September 4, 2012, and signed by Okupe's lawyer, Festus Keyamo, is the Benue State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice.  

Okupe in the suit, stated that in 2004, the Benue State Government under the leadership of former governor of the state, George Akume, awarded a contract to Value Trust Investment Limited, for the construction of rural roads using a product known as Romix Soil Stabilizer.

The SSA further avered that the contract was duely executed in favour of his company on April 21, 2004.

According to Okupe: "By the terms of the said agreement, the Defendants were under an obligation to handover the projects sites to the Plaintiff within fifteen days after the execution of the contract. 

"That was to be on or before the 6th of May, 2004.

"The Plaintiff was only handed the first set of sites in August, 2004 (over four months from the date the contract agreement was signed). 

"The handing over of the first set of sites was communicated to the Plaintiff vide a letter dated the 11th day of August, 2004." 

The presidential aide maintained that his company took possession after the handover and started work on the sites handed over to it.

He argued that in line with the terms of the agreement, Value Trust Investment Limited was paid 30% (thirty percent) of the contract sum as mobilization fee.

The said his company used the mobilization fee to procure equipment, materials and chemicals meant for the execution of the contract.

Okupe posited that the sub-contractor who the plaintiff engaged to do bush clearing and other preparatory work in the construction was appointed for his company by the Benue State Government, a position which he said was against the agreement his company reached with the state government.

The presidential argued that the Benue Government does not  have the powers to appoint any sub-contractor of its choice.

Okupe said all the sub-contractors appointed for his company to carry out the initial preparatory work in the contract failed to meet with the terms of the agreements executed between the Plaintiff and the sub-contractors.