Inside the Bamenda Loan-and-Land Deals: Several Residents Say They Lost Millions to Henrietta Ngepah

Several people in Bamenda have accused Ngepah Henrietta Jupsia of collecting millions of FCFA from them after offering land as security, but failing to repay the money as agreed.

MMI News spoke separately to several complainants. Although they entered into different transactions, their accounts describe a similar pattern.

They say Henrietta collected money through private loan arrangements based largely on trust. She provided documents showing that land would serve as security if she failed to repay.

But when the repayment deadlines passed, the complainants say they could recover neither their money nor the land.

MMI News has reviewed several signed undertakings, land agreements and other documents bearing Henrietta’s name, identification details and signatures.

Together, the transactions brought to the attention of MMI News involve more than 12 million FCFA.

MMI News is withholding the complainants’ names, the individual amounts and some details of the transactions because of serious concerns for their safety.

Some live in Bamenda, where threats, arbitrary arrests and killings remain serious concerns. MMI News does not want its reporting to expose anyone to danger.

Documents show money received and land offered as security

One document reviewed by MMI News records that Henrietta received money from a lender and promised to repay it within an agreed period.

The same document says land in the Mbessi area of Nkwen would serve as collateral.

Another document gives a third person power of attorney to act for Henrietta in the sale of an urban property in Mbessi Quarter. The document links the proposed sale to a separate financial agreement.

A further undertaking reviewed by MMI News records another large sum received by Henrietta. It says land in the Nkwen area could be sold if she failed to repay the money by the agreed date.

The documents support the main parts of the complainants’ accounts: money was received, repayment dates were agreed, and land was presented as security.

However, the documents do not establish whether Henrietta held registered legal ownership of every property she offered.

That question became important when the lenders tried to recover their money.

Ownership disputes emerged after repayment failed

The complainants say that after Henrietta failed to repay them, they tried to claim or sell the land offered as security.

They say disputes over the ownership of the properties then emerged.

Some were told that the land did not belong to Henrietta. Others say lawyers and relatives became involved and warned them against trying to take the properties.

Several complainants also made allegations against Henrietta’s husband, Ngepah Julius Billa, who was sworn in as a barrister in Bamenda on Friday, July 24.

Complainants accuse Billa of intervening after the repayment disputes began.

At least one said Billa claimed that land and other property Henrietta had presented as security belonged to him and could not be taken by a lender.

The complainant also accused Billa of warning that he could have had the lender detained for carrying out a transaction with his wife without first consulting him.

MMI News is withholding further details because they could reveal the complainant’s identity and place the person at risk.

Arrested after failing to appear

Henrietta was arrested in Bamenda on Friday, July 17, after she failed to appear before the State Counsel.

A writ of capias dated July 15 and seen by MMI News directed officers of the Second District Police Station to arrest and bring her before the State Counsel in connection with an accusation of false pretence.

She was released the following day.

MMI News has not established the conditions under which she was released or the present status of the case.

Her arrest does not mean she is guilty. She remains presumed innocent unless and until convicted by a court.

Complainant says the loss destroyed his livelihood

One complainant told MMI News that the failure to recover the money he gave Henrietta had destroyed his livelihood and left him close to losing everything he had worked for.

Although he was willing to speak publicly, MMI News decided not to identify him because doing so could place him at serious risk.

His account is supported by an undertaking bearing Henrietta’s name, identification details and signature.

The document records the money received, the repayment deadline and the land offered as security.

Billa denies involvement

MMI News contacted Ngepah Julius Billa and gave him an opportunity to respond to the allegations concerning him.

Billa said he was not involved when the financial transactions began and was not consulted before the complainants gave money to his wife.

He said he had never personally borrowed money from any of the complainants.

“I’m not part of the transactions. I don’t partake in illegality,” Billa told MMI News.

He argued that criminal responsibility is personal and that he cannot be held responsible for his wife’s alleged actions.

He also accused the complainants of trying to blackmail him and damage his reputation.

“The lenders who personally reported me to you just have the intention to blackmail me,” he said.

Billa maintained that he had no power to interfere with investigations or court proceedings.

“I don’t have the power to block the judicial process,” he said, adding that some of the disputes were already before investigators and the courts.

He argued that anyone entering a property-backed transaction with a married woman should first establish whether her husband has an interest in the property.

“If you are a man and want to carry on business activities with a married woman, by giving your property or money for her management, is it not important to at least consult or inform the husband?” he asked.

Billa said he could not represent his wife in court because that would create a conflict of interest.

He also criticised MMI News’ investigation and accused the newsroom of acting like a lawyer for the complainants.

“I really see you acting as an advocate for the lenders,” he said. “This matter is under judicial process, so it cannot be subject to social media debate. We should give chance to the judicial process for justice.”

MMI News explained that it is an independent newsroom reporting on documents, official records and accounts obtained from several people. Reporting on a matter does not prevent the judicial process from continuing.

Although Billa denied involvement generally, he did not directly answer questions about whether he:

• threatened any lender;
• accused one complainant of having an intimate relationship with his wife;
• made or supported a police or court complaint against a lender;
• produced land certificates when complainants attempted to claim property;
• owned any of the land offered as security;
• or received any benefit from the money.

He warned that he would take legal action over any report he considered defamatory.

“I must seek justice for any defamatory act against my personality by whoever,” he said.

Henrietta refuses to answer questions

MMI News also contacted Henrietta and gave her a detailed opportunity to respond.

She was asked about the money recorded in the documents, the land offered as security, repayments to the complainants and the current status of the cases against her.

She refused to answer those questions.

Instead, Henrietta criticised MMI News for reporting her arrest and publishing her photograph before obtaining her response.

She said the earlier report had caused serious damage to her reputation.

“I can’t really say anything now because you had already posted information about me and my pictures on social media without hearing my own part of the story,” she told MMI News.

MMI News’ earlier report was based on the writ of capias and confirmation that Henrietta had been arrested after failing to appear before the State Counsel.

The report also stated clearly that her arrest was not a conviction.

Henrietta was again informed that several people had approached MMI News and that the documents reviewed by the newsroom involved more than 12 million FCFA.

She was invited to answer the questions or provide documents challenging the complainants’ accounts.

She did not address the financial transactions, the signed undertakings, the land offered as security or the question of repayment.

Key questions remain unanswered

The investigation has raised several important questions.

Did Henrietta have the legal right to offer the land as security?

Why did different complainants receive documents connected to land in the same general area?

Why were lenders unable to recover either their money or the properties after the repayment deadlines passed?

When did Billa first learn about the transactions?

Why do several complainants accuse him of confronting or threatening them when they demanded repayment?

On what conditions was Henrietta released one day after her arrest, and what is the present status of the false-pretence case?

MMI News is continuing to seek court records, police documents, land certificates and other evidence that could answer these questions.

The courts will determine whether any crime was committed.

But the documents and accounts reviewed by MMI News reveal a clear and repeated pattern: people handed over large sums of money, land was offered as security, repayment failed, and the lenders were left struggling to recover what they say they lost.

MMI News