Sterling Bank and its top executives have taken the House of Representatives to court, accusing lawmakers of overstepping constitutional boundaries in a controversial probe into private customer accounts already addressed by a Federal High Court judgment.

Consequently, Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed July 18, 2025, for the hearing of a constitutional challenge filed by Sterling Bank Limited and its affiliates against the House of Representatives.

At the heart of the dispute is a legal battle over the limits of legislative power, with Sterling Bank alleging that the House is overstepping its constitutional bounds by probing issues already resolved by the courts.

The plaintiffs – Sterling Bank, Sterling Financial Holdings Company Plc, and executives Yemi Odubiyi, Abubakar Suleiman, Lekan Olakunle, and Dele Faseemo – are seeking a perpetual injunction to restrain the House and its Public Petitions Committee Chairman, Hon. Michael Etiaba, from taking further steps based on a police report alleging financial misconduct in the bank’s handling of accounts belonging to Dr. Innocent Usoro and Miden Systems Limited.

Also joined in the suit are Dr. Usoro, Miden Systems Limited, and the Inspector General of Police.

Filed by human rights lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, the suit argues that the National Assembly lacks constitutional authority – under Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution to investigate private banking transactions or revisit matters already concluded by a 2021 consent judgment of the Federal High Court.

The plaintiffs contend that the legislature is using investigative powers to relitigate settled judicial issues, thereby violating the principle of separation of powers.

The Bank also challenged the House’s power to summon its staff or executives in connection with the disputed transactions, asserting that such actions amount to an abuse of legislative privilege and an encroachment on judicial functions.

In contrast, the defendants – represented by Rowland Osinachi Uzoechi stated that the suit is a deliberate attempt to block legislative oversight and frustrate accountability.

They argued the plaintiffs’ claims are speculative and that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Further escalating the dispute, the third defendant, Dr. Usoro, filed a 40-paragraph counter-affidavit accusing Sterling Bank of fabricating documents to support a fictitious $30 million loan.

He insisted that he was in the United States when the documents were allegedly signed and that unauthorized personnel’s signatures were forged.

Usoro also cited findings from a January 2025 report by the Inspector General of Police, which reportedly uncovered suspicious inflows exceeding $122 million into Miden Systems’ accounts.

He alleged that the bank used forged documents, including board resolutions, personal guarantees, and lease agreements to deceive the court and obtain a Mareva injunction.

Sterling Bank has denied all allegations of fraud and document forgery.

It maintained that all transactions were lawful and tied to a legitimate commercial loan linked to a 2010 Shell contract executed by Miden Systems.

Justice Osiagor had fixed July 18 2025 for hearing.