Headline

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

Published

7 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

Parties’ Deregistration: ADC, Not NDC, is the Target

Published

1 day ago

June 29, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

As the 2027 presidential election draws closer, intrigues, manipulations and maneuvers have continued to be the order of the day as political parties engage in one gimmick or another to outdo and undo one another.

While some are playing politics of numbers and conviction, others are engaging tendencies that tend to question the status quo and established principles under which genuine democracy is formed. As a matter of fact, fingers have been pointed at the President Bola Tinubu-led Federal government as the brain behind all machinations that have attempted to derail multi-party democracy, and institute a one-party state, which is alien to the Nigerian democratic roots. This is as a result of the constant imbroglio that has consistently engulf almost all the major political parties in the country.

Fresh facts have however, emerged to prove that every act of frustration thrown at the opposition has been indirectly aimed at the main opposition party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

According to reliable sources, the recent deregistration of parties, especially the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC), was actually targeted at the ADC.

Recall that the Federal High Court in Lokoja, Kogi State, on June, 26, set aside its earlier judgement directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the NDC as a political party. A ruling that put a question mark on the eligibility of the party presenting candidates in the forthcoming 2027 elections

The presiding judge, Isah Dashen, held that all relevant parties must be heard before any substantive decision can be made in the matter.

The court upheld the application filed by a certain organization, the Peace Movement Party (PMP), ruling that the party was a necessary party to the suit.

According to the judge, the earlier judgement was constitutionally defective as it was delivered without hearing from all interested parties.

He declared that such an omission rendered the entire process null and void.

Mr Dashen further ruled that the status quo be restored to what it was before the December 10, 2025 judgement, pending the determination of the substantive suit.

He also observed that certain material facts were suppressed in the earlier proceedings, which justified the decision to set aside the judgment.

Consequently, the court ordered that the substantive suit should begin afresh, with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the PMP and the NDC as parties to the case.

According to NAN’s reports, the applicant’s lawyer, Chikezie Ekeocha, told journalists that the PMP approached the court after discovering that NDC’s registration was based on a logo it had previously submitted to INEC before the commencement of the suit.

According to Mr Ekeocha, the court agreed that the applicant’s rights had been affected and consequently vacated the earlier judgement.

“The court has ordered all parties to return to the position they occupied before the judgment of 10 December 2025, and directed the claimants to join all necessary parties to ensure the issues in dispute are effectually and completely determined,” he said.

He explained that the implication of the ruling is that every action taken by INEC in compliance with the now-vacated judgment stands reversed.

“The recognition of the NDC, the issuance of its certificate of registration, its inclusion in INEC’s records, and any appearance on ballot papers arising from that judgement must be withdrawn pending the final determination of the substantive suit,” Mr Ekeocha stated.

He, however, clarified that the substantive case remains before the court and has not been decided.

“The matter has not been concluded. The court merely set aside its previous judgment and directed that the party whose interests were affected be joined so that all sides can be heard before a fresh decision is reached.”

Mr Ekeocha also dismissed suggestions that the court merely ordered parties to maintain the status quo, insisting that the ruling specifically directed a restoration of the position that existed before the 10 December 2025 judgement.

The ruling effectively returns the dispute over the registration of the NDC to the Federal High Court for a fresh hearing, with all relevant parties expected to participate before a new determination is made.

It would also be recalled that a few weeks earlier, the Federal High Court in Abuja, had ordered the deregistration of five political parties including the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The others are Action People’s Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) and Accord Party.

However, on June 16, the Court of Appeal in Abuja halted the enforcement of the judgement, ruling that it violated its earlier ruling staying proceedings before the Federal High Court.

While INEC awaits the release of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment to deregister the NDC, the NDC has reacted, rejecting the judgment as travesty of justice.

Lending credence to the notion that the President Tinubu-led administration is basically targeting the establishment of the ADC as a party, and the candidature of its presidential flagbearer, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, who is also the presidential candidate of the ADC, has stated categorically that there are plots to prevent the party from participating in the 2027 general election.

Atiku’s position is stated in a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu on Monday, notifying the public that he had received credible information suggesting that political and legal manoeuvres were being deployed against the ADC, stressing that the persecution that has been thrown towards the NDC was a clear distraction as the main target is the ADC.

Atiku alleged that anti-democratic elements within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) were working to ensure that the ADC is excluded from the ballot.

“We are fully aware of their plots. While they seek to sow confusion within the opposition, we know their real target is the ADC because it represents the most credible alternative,” he said.

Atiku called on Nigerians to reject any attempt to determine which opposition parties participate in the election.

“We therefore call on all Nigerians — not just ADC members and supporters — to rise in defense of democracy and reject any attempt by the ruling party to cherry-pick which opposition parties are permitted to participate in the next general election,” he said.

“Our message to the APC and the hooded men plotting in dark chambers is simple: you may conspire, but you will not succeed.

“If the APC is truly confident in its popularity, why is it so terrified of the ADC?”

He said he hoped the information available to him would not materialise but argued that recent political developments made such concerns difficult to dismiss.

“The pattern has become all too familiar. First, institutions that ought to be neutral are drawn into partisan contests,” he said.

“Then, frivolous litigations suddenly gain unusual momentum. Administrative powers are selectively deployed.

“Political pressure is mounted behind closed doors. Before long, democracy itself becomes the casualty.”

Atiku alleged that the ruling party has focused more on weakening the opposition than addressing the country’s economic and security challenges.

“The obsession with silencing the opposition has become so consuming that governance itself has taken a back seat,” he said.

“At a time when Nigerians are battling hunger, inflation, unemployment, insecurity, and collapsing purchasing power, those entrusted with public office appear preoccupied with political survival rather than national survival.”

Nigerians recall that ever since the official rejuvenation of the ADC in June/July of 2025, where the duo of Senator David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola emerged as the party’s chairman and secretary respectively, the party has not known moments of peaceful coexistence as litigations from corners unknown have sprang up in a bid to destabilize the party and deprive it of the opportunity of featuring on the ballot paper come 2027.

ADC, as a child of circumstance emerged from the rumbles of the litigation-ridden former main opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), where two factions have consistently remelained at loggerheads over leadership. While the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, who is working assiduously to ensure the reelection of Bola Tinubu, leads one faction, Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, who became a defacto head, leads the other faction. In all, PDP appeared to have no direction, forcing many of its members to jump ship, thereby birthing the ADC, and to a large extent, the NDC, which is presenting Peter Obi as the presidential candidate, with former Kano governor, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, as his running mate.

Sources also informed The Boss that the hasty reading and passage of the Electoral Act 2026 by the Godswill Akpabio-led National Assembly, with many great areas left unattended to, were also part of the grand design to deprive the ADC the constitutional rights of presenting candidates for the 2027 elections.

But both the ADC and the NDC has vowed that they would follow every process to ensure that the crackdown on opposition parties by the Tinubu administration comes to an abrupt end.

But beyond the intrigues, Nigerians are gearing up to participate fully in the forthcoming election with cross sections of the population either hailing Tinubu for his policies or knocking him for the untold hardship in the land.

Headline

South Africa Nothing Without Africa – MTN Boss, Mcebisi Jonas

Published

3 days ago

June 27, 2026

Eric

The MTN Group Chairman, Mcebisi Jonas, has condemned the ongoing anti-foreigner sentiment in South Africa, describing it as a symptom of State failure being cynically exploited by politicians with no interest in genuine solutions.

The speech is seen as one of the most substantive interventions by a senior business figure into xenophobic crisis currently plaguing South Africa.

Delivered during the funeral service of Zimbabwean-born activist and public servant, Thokozani Damasane, Jonas’ words have sparked a wave of discussion across South African civil society.

“I was thinking, what is home to Damasane?” he said. “Because I understand, and I understood very early in life, that home is where humanity is. Home is about humanness. It is about the good of humanity and striving for the good of humanity.”

Thokozani Damasane was born and educated in Zimbabwe before relocating to South Africa during the post-apartheid transition period. Jonas described him as arriving “as an outcast” into a country still finding its post-liberation footing – and choosing, nonetheless, to commit himself entirely to its struggles and its people.

“He immersed himself deeply into the struggles, into the pains of South Africans, and he became one of us,” Jonas said.

“In Damasane’s strength, our strength as South Africa and South Africans is reflected. And in his weaknesses, our own weaknesses are reflected.”

Speaking further, Jonas blamed the state for the failure being witnessed, emphasising that if foreigners leave South Africa today, the country’s problems will still persist.

“Foreigners can leave tomorrow – inequality will be with us,” he told the congregation.

“Foreigners will leave tomorrow – unemployment will be with us. Foreigners will leave tomorrow – our police will remain corrupt. Foreigners will leave tomorrow – our politicians will still be concerned with one thing: being elected and re-elected.

“The problem is the failure of the state. The State doesn’t manage immigration. It doesn’t manage its borders. It doesn’t enforce
law enforcement. It doesn’t manage education. What are you expecting?”

Jonas argued that this failure created fertile ground for political manipulation. “When people feel the burn, they become vulnerable to politicians whose sole purpose is to be elected and re-elected. Some of them have no credibility whatsoever. But they lead marches and tell our people that the problem is not us – it is foreigners.”

Jonas recounted a conversation he had witnessed between Damasane and a young man who had challenged the right of foreigners to be in South Africa. Damasane’s response, Jonas said, had stayed with him ever since.

“Damasane said to this guy: Just wait fifteen or twenty years. You will also want to leave your country.”

Jonas told mourners those words now carry a weight Damasane may not have anticipated. “As I stand up today, I look at South Africa. The level of oppression and inequality, the level of exclusion of our people, the level of corruption, the betrayal of the dream of liberation – those words of Damasane ring very loud in my ears.”

South Africa is nothing without Africa

Jonas closed with a call for what he described as a return to “national consciousness” – one rooted in continental solidarity and economic interdependence rather than ethnic exclusion.

“We are a nation embedded in Africa,” he said. “And without Africa, our growth as a country – economically – our fortune is intertwined with the growth of Africa. South Africa is nothing without Africa. And Africa is nothing without South Africa.”

He also reframed the question of legacy and identity for Damasane’s children, who were present. “Sometimes this thing called meritocracy is measured in wealth. No. It is values, it is principles, it is integrity. And your father had all of that.”

“We cannot judge people by their origin,” he told mourners. “We cannot determine the legal status of people by their origin.”

Headline

NDC Rejects Court Ruling on Party’s Registration, Heads to Appeal Court

Published

3 days ago

June 27, 2026

Eric

The Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), on Friday, vowed to challenge the judgment nullifying its registration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), insisting that it would exercise its constitutional right of appeal.

Reacting to the ruling on Thursday, the party’s spokesman, Osa Director, said the NDC was still awaiting the certified copy of the judgment before making a comprehensive statement on the court’s decision.

He, however, confirmed that the party had resolved to head to the appellate court.

“We are still waiting to obtain a copy of the judgment. After reading the comprehensive judgment, we will make a detailed statement,” he said.

The spokesman added: “For now, what is certain is that we will exercise our right of appeal.”

Insisting that the party would challenge the ruling, he said: “It is our constitutional right to appeal, and we intend to exercise that right.”

When asked specifically whether the NDC would appeal the judgment voiding its registration, the spokesman replied: “Yes, the party will appeal the case.”

The party’s reaction came shortly after a Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja, Kogi State, in a judgement that nullified its registration by INEC, a development that could have significant implications for the NDC’s participation in the country’s political process ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The NDC, however, maintained that it would refrain from making further comments on the substance of the judgment until it had studied the full text of the court’s decision.

The party’s planned appeal is expected to set the stage for a fresh legal battle over its status and continued existence as a registered political party.