Headline

Opinion: P&ID vs. Nigeria: A Review- Reuben Abati

Published

6 years ago

August 20, 2019

Editor

By Reuben Abati

The report that a commercial court in the UK has ruled that Nigeria must pay a UK firm, Process and Industrial Development Limited (P & ID) a sum of $9.6 billion or have its assets in the UK to the tune of that amount forfeited has generated more than a little interest. For a country with a foreign reserve of $45 billion and sovereign debt profile of over $80 billion that judgment debt is quite a lot, potentially capable of rendering Nigeria even more technically insolvent. Dayo Apata, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice and Solicitor-General of the Federation has told the public that Nigeria will appeal the judgement and apply for a stay of execution to forestall the enforcement order that has been granted. Whereas this may be a logical step to take, even if it may achieve nothing in the long run other than putting more money in the pockets of counsel, there are specific issues that have been thrown up by Nigeria’s (mis)management of the case so far and the ruling of the UK court.

The first issue is Nigeria’s habitual disregard for the sanctity of contracts and terms of agreement, and the failure of Nigeria’s representatives in many cases to enter into agreements that are in the best interest of the country. The facts of the case in Process & Industrial Development vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2019) EWHC2241 (Comm), by way of summary are as follows: In January 2010, the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), through its Ministry of Petroleum Resources entered into a Gas Supply and Processing Agreement (GSPA) with P&ID. Under the terms of the agreement, Nigeria “was to supply natural gas (wet gas) at no cost to P&ID via a government pipeline to the site of P&ID’s production facility.” P&ID was required to construct and operate the facility, process the wet gas and return to the government of Nigeria, lean gas to be used for power generation at no cost to the government of Nigeria. P&ID was entitled to other derivatives stripped from the wet gas. The GSPA had a tenure of 20 years from the date of first supply of wet gas. Clause 20 of the GSPA provided for (a) the agreement to be construed in accordance with the laws of Nigeria; (b) in the event of a dispute over the interpretation or performance of the Agreement, which cannot be resolved amicably, either party will serve on the other a notice of arbitration, (c) the Arbitration award shall be final and binding upon the parties and (d) “the venue of the arbitration shall be London, England or otherwise as agreed by the Parties.” Two years later, a dispute arose between the P&ID and the Nigerian Government, and as this could not be settled amicably, the former served a notice of arbitration on the Nigerian government on the grounds that Nigeria had failed to make Wet Gas available in accordance with the GSPA.

The matter went before an Arbitration Tribunal, under the Rules of the Nigerian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2004, with London, England as place of Arbitration. After affirming its jurisdiction in the matter, the Tribunal began its procedural hearing to determine whether or not there was any repudiatory breach of contract. At this point, there was an attempt by the Ministry of Petroleum to reach a settlement agreement with P&ID to the tune of $850 million, payable in instalments. This was submitted for Presidential approval a week to President Jonathan’s departure from office. It would have amounted to tying the hands of the incoming government to grant the approval for the payment of that sum. Meanwhile, the Arbitration Tribunal had bifurcated the case and by July 2015, it affirmed that indeed Nigeria had failed to perform its obligations under the GSPA and then unanimously decided that P&ID was entitled to damages with interest. It took the new Nigerian government more than 4 months to respond. The excuse given for the delay, by Ms. Folakemi Adelore, witness for Nigeria, was that there had been a change of administration in Nigeria and that Ministers, including the Attorney General had only just been appointed. Nigeria asked for an extension of time to act on the outcome of the Arbitration Tribunal.

The Commercial court led by Phillips J. dismissed that appeal and the explanation for the delay at the time. Unsuccessful in having its way in England, Nigeria took up the matter at the Lagos Judicial Division of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, seeking essentially the same reliefs that were rejected by Phillips J. When notified of the proceedings in the Lagos High Court, P&ID dismissed the proceedings as “abusive and as a deeply unattractive attempt to forum shop”. There was a back-and-forth exchange of emails between the parties involved and the Tribunal over the meaning of venue or seat of arbitration. The Tribunal would eventually rule that London is the seat of arbitration “in the juridical sense”. The Nigerian government then went back to the Lagos High Court to set aside the Tribunal’s Procedural Order No. 12 and got favourable judgment. The Arbitration proceedings in London continued nonetheless to determine the quantum of damages and on January 31, 2017, the Tribunal issued its Final Award. The Tribunal insisted that P&ID would have played its own part in the contract if Nigeria had not repudiated its own obligations. It therefore ruled in favour of P&ID and ordered Nigeria to pay US$6.597,000, 000 being net present value of the profits which would have been earned by the P&ID. The Federal Government was also asked to pay interest on the amount at 7% per annum from March 2013. This final ruling was given in 2017. The Nigerian Government refused to pay and also failed to appeal the ruling! Why?

It may be routine conduct in Nigeria to ignore court orders, and assume that nothing will happen but things don’t work like that in the international domain. In March 2018, P&ID went to the Commercial Court in England to institute proceedings for the enforcement of the Final Award as declared by the Arbitration Tribunal. The Nigerian Government again did not respond in time. It waited till October 2018 before it finally acknowledged service and applied for relief for sanctions. The matter would finally be heard by Justice Christopher Butcher. It should be noted that on all the issues raised before the court of Butcher J. viz: the seat of arbitration and the order of the High Court of Lagos, issue estoppel, the conclusions of Procedural Order No. 12, (that is the ruling of the Arbitration Tribunal), public policy, pre-award interest and whether or not, the Final Award in favour of P&ID was excessive and punitive, the Court found in favour of P&ID on all the issues. Justice Butcher’s ruling raises cogent and recondite points of law, in a learned and rigorous manner; but in one word, he butchered Nigeria. The manner in which he did so, I intend to indicate shortly.

For now, what is clear to me is the reckless manner in which Nigerian officials often enter into agreements, on behalf of the country, without paying attention to the small print of the agreement and thinking through the feasibility of the agreement entered into. The net result is that the country incurs liabilities that are detrimental to corporate interest. On the face of it, the GSPA with P&ID would have been beneficial to Nigeria, particularly in terms of the constructive use of associated gas and the supply of lean gas to the national electricity grid for both industrial and domestic use. The GSPA was signed by the Ministry of Petroleum on behalf of Nigeria: was the Ministry not in a position to know the volume of wet gas that would be required to fulfil Nigeria’s obligations? What happened to the proposed pipeline? It would appear as if Nigeria signed the agreement in 2010 and just went to sleep. Where international contracts are involved, and we breach the terms of agreement, we end up projecting the country as an unfit and risky destination for investment. Even the private sector has been accused of failing to respect contractual agreements, the most recent example being the case of Nigerian airline operators and Boeing which has more or less blacklisted Nigerian airlines from leasing its aircraft. As it is with the Federal Government, so it is with the states. The Lagos Metro line project conceived by the Lateef Jakande administration in 1983 could have solved the perennial mass transit crisis in Lagos but it was soon politicized. When the Buhari military regime came to power, the project was eventually cancelled in 1985, without regard for the terms of the contract. The foreign contractor went to court and Nigeria had to pay a penalty of more than $78 million. The contractor was compensated for doing nothing!

Another issue is the lack of diligent prosecution of cases in which Nigeria is involved by those whose duty it is to do so. I assume that this is due to our tendency to either politicise everything or focus more on personal interests, or failure on the part of either representing counsel or the Attorney General’s office. As stated, it took Nigeria in this case about five months to respond to the initial ruling of the Arbitration Tribunal in London. The excuse that Nigeria was busy with elections and that new Ministers were not in place until November 2015 naturally appeared strange and laughable. When final ruling was given, Nigeria also did nothing. It had to wait until P&ID sought enforcement.

Butcher, J. in his August 16, 2019 ruling made heavy weather out of several acts of omission on the part of the Nigerian authorities. He observed in one instance, that “…the FRN had remedies for any procedural unfairness, but it did not utilise them”. Nigeria could also have objected to Procedural Order No. 12 or question the Final Award. In the words of Butcher J., “it did neither and the time for doing so is long past.” This is a serious indictment (see paragraphs 64 -66 of the ruling). The energy that should have been devoted to the Arbitration in London was diverted towards obsession with “seat of arbitration” and getting a favourable judgment from the Lagos High Court which in Nigeria’s contention was the “supervisory court”, a point about “sovereignty” both the Tribunal and the Court dismissed. Nigeria failed to pursue relevant questions: Questions for example about the quantum of damages. Or the tax that would have accrued to Nigeria through P&ID. Besides, what is the profit value of Nigeria’s 10% equity? And why were questions not raised about in-door management rules? It is also curious that Nigeria failed to insist on something quite obvious: the competence and the failure of P&ID to build the facility stated in the GSPA. Equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent. Could the Nigerian team have been making needless mistakes in order to help the other party? In a country that is perpetually in search of patriots, particularly in official corridors, this is a relevant question.

The Commercial Court in London has held that the Final Award by the Tribunal in favour of P&ID is not punitive or excessive, rather it is compensation for damages suffered. The Court gave an order enforcing the Final Award. There is no guarantee that Nigeria will succeed with either its appeal or its request for stay of execution. Whatever happens, the (mis)handling of this case requires introspection and steps to be taken to ensure that this kind of embarrassment does not occur again, hoping that there are no such similar cases in other jurisdictions or in hibernation which may soon come to the knowledge of the Nigerian public. The success of P&ID may well embolden other parties with similar issues with Nigeria to go to court. Our case is not helped either by the politicization of the matter with the on-going trading of blames. It may be necessary for the National Assembly when it returns from its recess to conduct an inquiry into how Nigeria, with all the concerns about revenue and growth, is now faced with a judgment debt of $9.6 billion, with daily interest accruing. Who are the state officials and their collaborators if there are any, who failed to ensure due diligence, both at the level of the contract and the management of the dispute with Process and Industrial Development Ltd? Why was wet gas not made available? Did the Attorney General’s office even vet the GSPA at all? From all indications, the dispute could have been settled out of court. Why did that option fail? $9.6 billion is about 20% of the country’s external reserves and 2.5% of GDP. Every single person, dead or alive, lawyer or state official, who has a hand in this mess must be called out.

Headline

Rivers Impeachment Brouhaha: Wike, Fubara ‘Run’ Abroad to Meet Tinubu

Published

12 hours ago

January 11, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

The fragile peace that sprout out in Rivers State after the six months Emergency Rule declared by President Bola Tinubu, has suddenly collapsed as the two major gladiators; the Federal Capital Territory Minister, Nyesom Wike and Rivers State governor, Siminalayi Fubara, have returned to the war front.

This is as the 26 legislators loyal to the FCT minister have initiated an impeachment proceedings against the sitting governor, Fubara, accusing him of gross misconduct roped in 8-count charges.

The lawmakers during a session on Thursday, presided over by Speaker of the House, Martin Amaewhule, are accusing Fubara and his deputy, Dr. Ngozi Oduh, of gross misconduct.

Observers have said that the day’s proceedings bear the imprimatur of renewed hostilities between Fubara and his predecessor Nyesom Wike, minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

Rrcall that onn December 5, 2025, a horde of the Rivers assembly lawmakers led by the speaker, announced their defection from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC), and days later, Fubara formalised his own switch from the PDP to the APC.

By the renewed hostilities, the two feuding personalities are seeking the support of the president, who it is believed can quench the rising tension, to either impeach the Chief Executive or survive the impeachment process.

A report monitored on Businessday Newspaper noted therfore, that President Bola Tinubu has once again intervened in the lingering political crisis between Fubara, and Wike.

According to the paper, quoting credible sources, the President summoned Wike for a crucial meeting abroad over the renewed face-off, which has reignited tensions in the oil-rich state, even as the president is still holidaying abroad.

The paper also The Punch, said a top presidential source disclosed on Saturday that the meeting is expected to be held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), where Tinubu will be heading after a brief stay in France.

“The President must see the danger in what Wike is doing. I am aware he has summoned him to a meeting in Dubai. Barring any last-minute change, they are expected to meet abroad. Wike cannot impeach Fubara; the President will call him to order,” the source said.

The source added that Wike’s recent actions constituted an affront to the President and could potentially trigger unrest in the Niger Delta.

“If you say you want to sack the first Ijaw man to be governor, are you not sending the Ijaw people back to the creeks? That will have attendant effects on the economy, and the President will not allow that to happen,” he warned.

According to reports, tension heightened on Thursday after 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, loyal to Wike, initiated fresh impeachment proceedings against Governor Fubara and his deputy, Prof. Ngozi Odu.

The impeachment notice, read by Majority Leader, Major Jack, during plenary presided over by Speaker Martins Amaewhule, contained seven allegations of gross misconduct against the governor.

These include the demolition of the Assembly complex, extra-budgetary spending, and refusal to comply with a Supreme Court ruling on legislative financial autonomy.

Deputy Governor Odu was accused of “reckless and unconstitutional spending of public funds” and “obstructing the Assembly from performing its duties.”

Speaker Amaewhule described the impeachment move as “good and in the interest of Rivers State,” accusing Fubara of undermining the Assembly by failing to present the 2026 budget.

The latest move mirrors the earlier impeachment crisis that led to the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers in March 2025.

Despite Tinubu’s earlier mediation, the fragile peace between Wike and Fubara collapsed just months after the end of the six-month emergency rule.

Wike accused Fubara of reneging on their post-truce agreements, while Fubara fired subtle jabs at his predecessor.

A senior aide to the President told reporters that Tinubu was aware of the escalating situation but declined to confirm any planned meeting with Wike.

“Only Wike or his aides can say if there is any scheduled meeting between him and the President,” the official said.

However, a senior APC official confirmed that national leaders of the party planned to meet Tinubu when he returns to Nigeria to discuss the growing discontent over Wike’s conduct.

“Some of our leaders believe Wike should have respected the President and the party because Fubara is now one of our governors,” the official said. “Even if he won’t get a second term, he should be allowed to complete his tenure.”

Meanwhile, Wike has been touring Rivers local councils, soliciting and accepting approvals from loyalists just as Fubara has asked for calm from members while they wait on the president.

Headline

Atiku Will Not Withdraw for Anyone, ADC Ticket Must Be Earned in Open Contest – Paul Ibe

Published

4 days ago

January 8, 2026

Eric

Media Adviser to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Paul Ibe, has insisted that neither Atiku nor any other aspirant in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) opposition coalition will step aside, stressing that the party’s presidential ticket must be earned through a transparent and competitive process.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE News on Wednesday, Ibe said calls for Atiku to withdraw from the race undermine democratic principles and play into what he described as the ruling All Progressives Congress’ alleged plan to weaken opposition politics.

“Inclusiveness is the essence of democracy. The ADC remains committed to an open, transparent and competitive process for choosing its flag bearer. Any call for Atiku Abubakar to step aside is a betrayal of the Nigerian people,” he said.

Ibe accused the administration of President Bola Tinubu of interfering in the internal affairs of opposition parties, alleging an agenda to impose a one-party state on Nigeria.

“The Tinubu-led administration should be focused on governance — security, the economy, the welfare of Nigerians — but instead, they are dabbling into opposition politics. That is dangerous for democracy,” he said.

He dismissed claims that Atiku dominates the ADC, describing such narratives as “mischief.”

“Atiku Abubakar is just a member of the ADC. Yes, he is a leader, a former vice president, but he is not the only leader. There are leaders across the country, and he is working with them to build party structures,” Ibe said.

According to him, the party’s current priority is grassroots mobilisation, not ticket permutations.

“Talking about who gets the ticket now is putting the cart before the horse. A house without pillars will collapse. The ADC is building structures — ward, local government, state — and that is where the focus should be.”

On speculation about possible compromises with other aspirants such as Peter Obi and Rotimi Amaechi, Ibe said no discussion has taken place regarding relinquishing the presidential ticket.

“There has been no conversation whatsoever about stepping down for anyone. Their preoccupation is building a robust alternative platform capable of giving the APC a run for its money.”

Addressing reports of alliances involving figures outside the ADC, including Rabiu Kwankwaso and former President Olusegun Obasanjo, Ibe said such talks were external to the party.

“Rabiu Kwankwaso is not a member of the ADC. Whatever discussions are happening are outside the party. But the ADC is expanding, reaching out, and more people will come on board.”

He maintained that the ADC leadership has ruled out automatic tickets, insisting the process will not be dictated by external forces.

“The party has made it clear: no automatic tickets. The outcome of the primaries will be determined by party members, not outside influence.”

Responding to questions about Atiku’s age and repeated presidential bids, Ibe rejected suggestions that the former vice president should step aside to mentor successors.

“Age has nothing to do with leadership. Atiku has mentored governors, lawmakers and public servants over the years. He is patriotic, passionate, and deeply committed to Nigeria.”

He added:

“If you analyse his blood, you will find Nigeria in it. Nobody has been more prepared to govern than Atiku Abubakar.”

Ibe also alleged that Nigeria’s last two presidential elections were rigged, arguing that Atiku’s defeats were not a reflection of public trust.

“The elections of 2019 and 2023 were rigged. This is not about trust; it is about institutions failing Nigerians.”

On fears that opposition divisions could again hand victory to the ruling party in 2027, Ibe said opposition leaders had learned from past mistakes.

“This is not about personal ambition. It is a call to national duty. Leaders understand what is at stake and have learned from 2023.”

He further alleged attempts by the ruling party to infiltrate and destabilise the ADC.

“The Tinubu camp does not want an opposition. They are funding court cases and using state resources to undermine the ADC, but the party is taking steps to ensure they fail.”

However, Ibe said some details could not be disclosed publicly.

“There are things I cannot share on camera, but the leadership and stakeholders are fully aware.”

Asked what would happen if Atiku loses the ADC primary, Ibe said his principal would accept the outcome.

“Atiku Abubakar will submit himself to the process and support whoever emerges as the presidential candidate of the ADC.”

Headline

2027: Dele Momodu Warns Against Introduction of ‘Aggression and Rambunctiousness’ into ADC

Published

4 days ago

January 8, 2026

Eric

Veteran Journalist and chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) Chief Dele Momodu, has cautioned the party against repeating internal conflicts similar to those experienced in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), stressing that some groups are introducing ‘aggression and rambunctiousness into a fledgling cooperation’.

In a post on X, Momodu recalled the 2025 gathering in Abuja, where opposition parties coalesced around ADC to challenge the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

He wrote: “I was most elated hearing these beautiful words. I was happy to see an Army veteran and General David Mark as Chairman, knowing he would brook no nonsense. But in recent time, some groups have introduced aggression and rambunctiousness into a fledgling cooperation. How can a coalition work if some groups insist they must produce the top ticket by donation and coronation, without election or persuasion?”

Momodu warned that ADC must enforce discipline before internal disagreements escalate, citing how former Governor of Rivers State, Nyesom Wike, consolidated power within the PDP.

“ADC should be a party of love and not a Fuji house of commotion,” he said.

The warning coincides with renewed clarifications from the Obidient Movement Worldwide, which has emphasised that former Anambra State Governor, Peter Obi, who recently defected from the Labour Party to the ADC, will not serve as a vice-presidential candidate to any politician, asserting that its support is exclusively for his emergence as Nigeria’s president in 2027.

“Everybody that was in that particular coalition contributed to that particular coalition with their hard-earned money. Nobody owns that political party, please, and please, don’t get it wrong,” Yunusa said.

He described Obi as a candidate capable of delivering what the Obidient Movement calls a “moral solution” to Nigeria’s leadership challenges, highlighting policy priorities including economic discipline, national security, and sustainable fuel subsidies. Yunusa also outlined Obi’s approach to foreign relations, saying, “The people of Nigeria are the ones that Mr Peter Obi will interface with as a gentleman. And then he will also link up with the international community to ensure that they’ve got that particular respect they desire.”

Addressing criticisms over Obi’s political mobility, Yunusa said structural challenges within the Labour Party necessitated his defection to ADC. “Forces in power deliberately undermined the party’s functionality. If your house is being deliberately set on fire, would you remain inside it? There was a calculated attempt to destroy what was being built,” he said.

Yunusa said that Obi’s decision to join ADC followed consultations with a broad coalition of groups seeking national reform. “Ordinarily, Peter Obi would flow with the people who are calling for him,” he said, noting that young Nigerians involved in the process are “the deciders” of his political trajectory.

The Obidient Movement has committed to following a transparent ADC presidential primary and stated it will act collectively with Obi should the process be compromised, signalling continued vigilance over party discipline and coalition cohesion.

As Nigeria approaches the 2027 elections, Obi’s positioning within ADC, alongside warnings from figures like Momodu, underscores the ongoing tension between coalition building, party discipline, and the ambitions of influential political actors in the opposition landscape.

Additional info: The Guardian