Legal stakeholders in Rivers State have voiced strong concerns over a recent judgment delivered by Justice Alatuwo E. Fubara of the Rivers State High Court ordering Polaris Bank to pay N1.4 billion in a foreign exchange dispute involving Paulazanda Nigeria Limited.

Justice Fubara not only issued the judgment but also signed a Writ of Execution on the same day, a move critics say effectively denied the bank its constitutional right to file an appeal or request a stay of execution.

Background of the Dispute

The case originated in 2019 after Polaris Bank facilitated a foreign exchange (FX) transaction through the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) for Paulazanda to import goods. When the supplier failed to deliver all the goods, the unused FX portion was returned to the CBN.

Due to updated CBN regulations, Polaris Bank was unable to refund Paulazanda at the 2019 exchange rate. The bank’s request for a policy waiver was rejected, and Paulazanda was informed it needed to reapply for FX at the 2025 buying rate.

Two key CBN circulars—TED/FEM/PUB/FPC/001/011 (May 3, 2024) and TED/FEM/PUB/FPC/001/001 (January 12, 2025)—mandated that unused FX be returned to the CBN for repurchase at the rate prevailing at the time of allocation. Paulazanda was subsequently reimbursed directly by the CBN.

Dissatisfied, Paulazanda filed suit PHC/1856/CS/2025 on May 23, 2025, and the matter was assigned to Justice Fubara. Polaris Bank was served on June 10, 2025.

Unusually Speedy Proceedings

Observers say the case proceeded at an abnormal pace:

• The first hearing was conducted on July 2, 2025, even though Polaris Bank had not secured legal representation.
• By July 9, the judge adjourned for judgment without clear evidence that the bank had received proper hearing notices.
• Analysts note that most judges insist on proper service to ensure fairness and procedural integrity.

Once notified, Polaris Bank filed extensive documents challenging the court’s jurisdiction based on Section 251(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, which places banking, currency, and CBN-related matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

Despite this, Justice Fubara assumed jurisdiction and delivered judgment against the bank on November 4, 2025—and immediately signed the Writ of Execution.

Controversy Over Enforcement

On November 5, the claimant’s legal team attempted to enforce the judgment by moving to seize Polaris Bank’s Port Harcourt premises, even though:

• The physical judgment document was not yet available.
• Polaris Bank’s lawyers only obtained the judgment on November 6 and immediately noted discrepancies in the damages computation.

Legal experts argue the judge’s actions contradict provisions of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, which requires a minimum grace period—typically three days—between judgment delivery and issuance of a writ of attachment.

They warn that the sequence demonstrates “serious procedural abnormalities” and may constitute judicial misconduct.

Broader Implications

Stakeholders within the Rivers legal community say the case exposes longstanding concerns about judicial impartiality, due process, and accountability. They warn that the handling of the case not only damages Polaris Bank’s financial and reputational standing but also sets a dangerous precedent for commercial litigation in the state.

They are calling for closer oversight and reforms to ensure fair hearing, proper service procedures, and adherence to constitutional safeguards—critical elements for maintaining public confidence in the judicial system.