THE High Court in London has set January 16 next year to hear the Nigerian government’s appeal against an award of $11bn against it for illegally cancelling a gas processing contract with Process and Industrial Developments Ltd (P&ID).
P&ID clinched the deal in 2010 for a 20-year period, but the British Virgin Island-based company said the Nigerian government reneged on the agreement amid claims and counter-claims of impropriety on both sides.
The matter ended up in the High Court in London in 2017 and P&ID was awarded damages of $6.6bn plus interest of seven per cent annually.
During this period, the amount has shot up to $11bn.
On Friday in the High Court in London, Justice Knowles told lawyers representing both sides that the hearing in the new year would last for eight weeks.
However, during the Friday sitting, the judge heard that the Nigerian government had taken a hostile position on the award of damages, claiming that the court was biased.
For instance, Ibrahim Magu, the former head of Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), had said that the UK court and judge should be investigated for previous judgements against Nigeria.
He said that Nigeria would seek a probe into the proceedings at a diplomatic level.
But in 2020, a Nigerian government probe found that Magu had ‘abandoned’ 14 fraud cases involving $309 million.
One media adviser to President Muhammadu Buhari said the British legal system was ‘tainted’ and called for Nigeria to ‘stand up to the system’.
The media adviser had suggested in 2019 that the original award to P&ID was to impose ‘punitive’ judgement on Nigeria.
It was in light of these acrimonious statements from the Nigerian side that the High Court heard on Friday that lawyers representing P&ID had been subjected to ‘interference’.
Lord David Wolfson of Tredegar, KC, representing P&ID, said: ‘Our concerns are lawyers in this case have already been subject to interference.’
Mark Howard, KC, representing the Nigerian government had suggested that solicitors from both sides should be sent to Abuja to supervise two witnesses who were giving evidence remotely.
He said: ‘There are security concerns in Nigeria, which are well known.
‘It is a comparatively dangerous place, but if one is going to a five-star hotel then to the arbitration centre, it is something you’re able to do.’
Howard said his side was prepared to send solicitors, ‘so we do not see why they cannot send theirs’.
But Lord Wolfson countered: ‘It’s not a question of whether Nigeria is safe generally.
‘We are on the other side to the government and we are concerned, given the history of this case about people going out to Nigeria.’
He went on: ‘There have been some statements put out by the Nigerian government about judges in previous cases which have been regrettable.
‘The Nigerian government runs its own website where they provide commentary about this case.
‘We don’t want it to turn into a bit of a circus in Nigeria beyond the court’s control.
‘If it is the Attorney General who wants to attend, he has come to London before and it’s not clear why he couldn’t pitch up,’ Lord Wolfson added.
The Nigerian Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, who is overseeing his government’s case, is the son-in-law of Buhari and the subject of allegations of corruption and improper behaviour.
The P&ID arbitration claim is one of the largest awarded against the Nigerian government and highlights the Buhari administration’s failure to adhere to normal standards of doing business, a legal expert told Africa Briefing.
‘The case is a test of Nigeria’s respect for the rule of law and its attractiveness as a foreign investment destination.
‘Despite claiming to run an anti-corruption campaign, the Buhari administration has itself become mired in allegations of nepotism and graft’, the legal expert added.
The issue of bribery is at the centre of the case, with the Nigerian government accusing P&ID of greasing palms in Nigeria to land the contract.
According to Howard, P&ID had argued that any money it disbursed was done on the ‘basis of customary giving and humanitarian purpose’.
He said: ‘This idea of customary gifts does not have an equivalent in English law and it is only right we hear from Nigerian experts.’
Lord Wolfson said: ‘The central question is not if something is lawful or not as a matter of
Nigerian law.
‘The central question is whether there was dishonesty.
‘Nigerian law is not the test of that.’
Justice Knowles said: ‘I do think it is appropriate in the present case to involve Nigerian law experts.
‘In this case it is important as a matter of respect for the legal system that the court hears closely from available sources of Nigerian law.’
He then said the court should hear from such legal experts.