Connect with us

Headlines

Nigeria’s Loss of $9.6bn: Who’s Responsible?

Published

on

By Eric Elezuo

On August 16, 2019, the Nigerian government received the greatest shock of its administration when a British Court awarded over $9 billion damages against it for failing to honour a contract in a landmark judgement.

The judgment, which was delivered by Justice Butcher of The High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, ruled against Nigeria’s objection to arbitration which in 2017 settled that the Nigerian government should pay $6.6 billion as damages to a company, Process & Industrial Development Limited (P&ID). The damages and interest add up to a figure above $9 billion.

Nigeria’s former Attorney-General, Mr. Bayo Ojo, was among the three member arbitration panel that gave judgement in favour of P&ID against the Nigerian government and at the same time secured the monetary award. While Mr. Ojo tried his best to ensure that Nigeria escaped with a paltry $250 million, the majority opinion of Lord Hoffmann and Anthony Evans, the two other members of the panel, ensured that Nigeria lost the case.

Hoffmann and Evans held that P&ID’s expenditure and income should have been about $6.597 billion if the agreement was duly performed by the government. They also insisted that the award should be paid together with interest at the rate of 7 per cent from March 20, 2013.

Ever since the judgement, blames have been traded between the present All Progressives Congress (APC) administration led by Muhammadu Buhari, and previous administrations dating back to the late Umaru Musa Yar’dua era.

Leading the blame game is the returnee Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Nigeria, Mallam Abubakar Malami. The Minister, who was reappointed by President Muhammadu Buhari, few days after the judgement described the ruling as the “consequences of the underhand dealings of the past administration”.

He said: “Sadly, in spite of the spirited and concerted efforts of the current administration to combat corrupt practices and rent-seeking in all its forms, Nigerians woke up on Friday, August 16, 2019, to the rudest consequences of the underhand dealings of the past administration that has resulted in the award of $9 billion against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, by a British court which ruled that Process and Industrial Development Limited had the right to seize $9 billion in Nigerian assets.”

The lawyer went ahead and specifically fingered the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan as the culprit, saying he connived “with local and International conspirators in a bid to inflict grave economic adversity on the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the good people of Nigeria.”

Malami concluded his blame with a threat, stressing that the federal government would punish any government official whose action or inaction led to the award of $9 billion damages against Nigeria. He also promised that the government “will vigorously defend its rights to protect its people’s assets around the world against the enforcement of the judgement.”

It is worth knowing that the value of the penalty represents approximately a fifth of the country’s foreign reserves of $45bn. the fact of the case is itemised as follows:

  • The agreement, which set the basis for the current legal action, was a Gas Supply and Processing Agreement signed in January 2010.
  • If concluded, the deal would have offset a significant percentage of Nigeria’s energy deficit (Africa’s largest oil and gas producer has a notoriously epileptic power supply).
  • P&ID claims about $40m were expended on the project, but Nigeria did not meet its obligations and cost the company billions in damages representing future profits it had lost.
  • In 2013, after the deal failed, P&ID dragged the government to court and won a $6.6bn arbitration case against the Federal Government.
  • Four years later, the firm was awarded $6.6bn, with an additional $2.4bn included as accrued interest.
  • Nigeria for years resisted P&ID’s attempts to begin enforcement proceedings of the rulings in the US and the UK; the judgement by the British court now allows the firm to begin seizing Nigerian assets.
  • Under the Jonathan administration, Nigeria negotiated an out-of-court settlement with P&ID for a far smaller sum of $850m. However, the president left the payment to the incoming Buhari administration, which set aside the settlement and asked its lawyers to return to litigation.

Undaunted by the threats and name calling of the Buhari government, the Jonathan camp responded, throwing the blame to the feet of the present administration. It alleged that the administration failed to pay the $850million out of court settlement with P&ID just to spite the previous administration. The government has however, denied that it did not handle the case diligently.

In a statement, signed by a former aide of Jonathan, Mr. Reno Omokri, the Jonathan camp noted as follows:

“Former President Jonathan was not president in January 2010. During that time, he was completely shut out of power by an unelected cabal that ran Nigeria during the period of the ill health of the late President Yar’Adua, before the National Assembly courageously intervened on February 9, 2010.”

Jonathan assumed office in February 2010 and, according to Omokri, the deal had by then already been set in motion by Rilwanu Lukman, Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s Petroleum Minister. The cabinet and close allies of the late president had refused to turn over sensitive documents to his deputy because Yar’Adua hadn’t handed over to him as constitutionally stipulated.

“That same cabal has resurrected and has now coalesced around President Muhammadu Buhari, with some of them being made either ministers, or formal and informal advisers. As a matter of fact, the main man behind that cabal is now one of the closest persons to General Buhari.”

Another dangerous twist was added to the crisis, when a statement purportedly made by P&ID surfaced, blaming President Buhari and Mallam Malami for the high cost of the damage. The statement detailed events that transpired since 2010 when the deal was first contracted.
An extract of the statement read thus: “The Attorney General’s pronouncements in the Nigerian press are a clear attempt to cover up his own incompetence and that of the Buhari Administration. This is a matter, which could have been settled shortly after he took office in November 2015 for $850 million. Instead, he personally took the decision to gamble on the arbitration and turned an $850 million liability into a $9.6 billion liability.”

It is okay that the Attorney General has sworn to prosecute and punish everyone involved and responsible for the loss, if it is eventually executed, one thing must be established, will he also prosecute himself if given the afore-mentioned, he also had a role to play.

Continue Reading
Advertisement


Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headlines

Tinubu Orders Arrest, Suspension of Three Perm Secs As ICPC Uncovers Another Fake Govt Agency

Published

on

President Bola Tinubu on Friday ordered the immediate arrest and suspension of three federal Permanent Secretaries over their alleged involvement in the operation of another fake agency uncovered by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).

ICPC Chairman, Dr Musa Adamu Aliyu, who disclosed this to newsmen after briefing President Tinubu on the latest findings from the commission’s ongoing investigation into fictitious agencies and weaknesses in public sector processes named the affected Permanent Secretaries to include M S Danjuma, Engr Nadungu Gagare, and Richard Pheelangwah.

The Commision’s latest discovery is coming barely few weeks after exposing the fictitious Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC).

According to Aliyu, the newly uncovered entity, operating as National Brands Development and Made-in-Nigeria Special Project Office, had allegedly secured office accommodation within the premises of the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF) without authorisation from the President.

The discovery, he said, was made during the broader investigation into the PFIPC, which President Tinubu had directed the ICPC to undertake.

The fake agency, according to ICPC boss, was promoted by Prince George Buchi Nwabueze, who allegedly operated under several variations of his name, including George Nathan Nwabueze, Honourable George Buchi Nwabueze, Prince George Buchi Nwabueze and George Buchi Nwabueze.

Aliyu disclosed that the commission was engaging relevant officials in the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation to establish how the purported agency came to operate from government premises and to obtain other vital information required for the investigation.
“I have briefed Mr President comprehensively on these new developments. ICPC will continue with its investigation,” he said.

Following the fresh findings, Aliyu said President Tinubu had directed the immediate arrest of Prince George Buchi Nwabueze, as well as the immediate suspension of the three named permanent secretaries.

The commission is expected to establish the roles played by the suspended officials and other individuals in the emergence and operation of the purported agency.

Aliyu said the latest discovery underscored the need for tighter controls and greater scrutiny of government institutions and internal administrative processes.

He commended President Tinubu for ordering a wider policy audit of federal agencies and government processes, describing the initiative as a proactive measure to strengthen the governance system.

His said: “President Bola Tinubu must be commended for the proactive step of directing the policy audit of MDAs and internal government processes towards strengthening government governance system.”

The latest development has widened the scope of the ICPC’s investigation into the proliferation of fictitious government entities and alleged exploitation of official structures by individuals seeking to create the impression of government authority.
The commission’s investigation into the PFIPC was initiated after the purported agency came under scrutiny, with the President subsequently directing the ICPC to unravel those behind its operations and determine whether public officials facilitated its activities.

With the discovery of another purported agency operating from government premises, the ICPC probe is now expected to examine broader institutional weaknesses that may have enabled unauthorised entities to gain access to federal government facilities and present themselves as legitimate government bodies.

Continue Reading

Headlines

2027: Atiku Promises to Restore Fuel Subsidy If Elected President

Published

on

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has promised to restore the petrol subsidy if he wins the 2027 presidential election.

Atiku made the pledge during an interview on Wednesday while questioning the use of funds he said were saved following the removal of the subsidy.

He said the policy could have been beneficial to Nigerians if the savings had been properly accounted for and invested in areas such as poverty reduction and education.

“I did not oppose the removal of the oil subsidy, but where is the money? Where did it go? It was intended to reduce poverty and help children attend school. Where is the money now? It seems they are just stealing it,” Atiku said in Hausa.

“If elected, I will bring back the oil subsidy, and whoever stole the money must refund it.”

The former vice president said he would also consider the removal of the subsidy if the funds generated from the policy were transparently used to address the country’s development challenges.

“The government successfully removed the subsidy, but we do not know where the money went. If they had used the money for development, to solve security problems, for education, and to create opportunities for the youth, it would be different. If elected, I can remove the subsidy and use the money to do all these properly.”

President Bola Tinubu announced the removal of the petrol subsidy during his inaugural address on May 29, 2023, before assuming office.

Continue Reading

Headlines

I’m Not Afraid of Anybody, Cardinal Onaiyekan Replies Presidency

Published

on

The Catholic Archbishop Emeritus of Abuja, Cardinal John Onaiyekan, has fired back at the Presidency over its criticism of his public account of a meeting between Catholic bishops and President Bola Tinubu, declaring that he did not appear on national television to please the government and was not afraid of anyone.

The 82-year-old cleric said he appeared on Arise News to tell Nigerians what he believed was the truth about the issues discussed during the bishops’ engagement with the President, insisting that neither his age nor criticism from government officials would silence him.

Onaiyekan spoke in a video shared by Symfoni TV on Wednesday, weeks after the Presidency criticised his decision to publicly disclose aspects of the meeting between the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) and Tinubu.

“I didn’t go to Arise to please the government, or to just please people, but to tell the truth. That’s all I stand for,” Onaiyekan said.

He also dismissed attacks against him on social media, saying he had no reason to engage those criticising him because other Nigerians had already responded on his behalf.

“I don’t have to respond to those attacking me on social media because other Nigerians have spoken on my behalf,” he said.

The cleric went further, declaring that he was not concerned about the possibility of being embarrassed or intimidated because of his advanced age.

“I cannot be embarrassed. I’m 82 years old; nobody can embarrass me. And I’m not afraid of anybody. Nobody, at this stage now, are they going to arrest me, carry me to where?” he declared.

Senior Special Assistant to President Bola Tinubu on Media and Publicity, Temitope Ajayi, who said his criticism of Cardinal John Onaiyekan was not intended to disrespect the cleric.

The controversy that followed a July 28 meeting between Tinubu and a delegation of the CBCN at the State House, Abuja.

The delegation was led by the CBCN President, Archbishop Matthew Man-Oso Ndagoso of Kaduna, and included Onaiyekan, Cardinal Peter Okpaleke, Bishop Matthew Kukah of Sokoto and other senior Catholic clerics.

During the meeting, the bishops raised a number of issues concerning the state of the nation, including economic hardship, insecurity, democracy, preparations for the 2027 elections, religious freedom and the return of mission schools.

Three days later, Onaiyekan appeared on Arise News and publicly recounted aspects of the engagement while speaking about the concerns expressed by the Catholic leadership over the condition of the country.

His comments subsequently attracted criticism from the Presidency. The President’s Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Temitope Ajayi, criticised the disclosure of details from the meeting, describing the engagement as a private interaction.

The Presidency’s reaction sparked a debate over the extent to which details of engagements between government and religious leaders should remain confidential, particularly when the discussions concern matters of public interest.

Onaiyekan, however, has maintained that his intervention was neither personal nor intended to embarrass the government. The cleric rejected any suggestion that he had presented a personal opinion during his television appearance.

According to him, the issues he discussed reflected the collective position of the Catholic bishops who participated in the engagement with the President.

“No, mind you, I didn’t talk on my own now. I spoke on behalf of my fellow bishops,” he said.

Onaiyekan disclosed that the bishops had prepared a joint statement containing the issues he subsequently discussed during the television interview.

“We drafted a statement which contained all that I said in the interview. So, all the bishops of Nigeria spoke that way. It was their voice I was echoing,” he stated.

Onaiyekan also emphasised that Catholic bishops remained entitled to speak within their respective dioceses about issues affecting Nigerians.

“I cannot speak on behalf of other religious leaders. Everybody has their own job to do, but many of the other religious leaders have supported us,” Onaiyekan said.

Onaiyekan also broadened his comments beyond the dispute with the Presidency, stressing that the economic difficulties confronting Nigerians could not be dismissed as a disagreement between the government and religious leaders.

He said the widespread poverty and suffering in the country affected everyone.

“When it comes to what is happening to Nigeria, the poverty, the suffering, we are all in the same boat now, abi?” he asked.

The cleric urged Nigerians not to take the country’s remaining space for public criticism and expression for granted.

“And we are still lucky in this Nigeria that we can still talk. We shouldn’t take that for granted. There are many countries in Africa where no bishop dares to talk like we do here,” he said

Meanwhile, Ajayi has sought to draw a line under the controversy, saying his earlier response to Onaiyekan was not intended to disrespect the Catholic cleric or the church.

Ajayi made the clarification during an interview on Arise TV on Thursday, days after criticising Onaiyekan for publicly discussing the details of the closed-door meeting between Tinubu and the CBCN.

The presidential aide said the matter had been resolved and insisted that there was no intention to disparage the respected cleric.

“Well, I think that episode has been closed. Cardinal Onaiyekan is a respected clergy and a statement in his own right,” Ajayi said.

He explained that his intervention was aimed at providing a different interpretation of the account given by the cardinal, rather than questioning his standing in the church or wider society.

“My response to him did not in any way disrespect him or disrespect his standing in the society and the church. He’s one of the leaders of the faith,” Ajayi said, adding that he only sought to offer another perspective on the account of the meeting between the bishops and the President.

“I only tried to provide a different perspective from his own account of the bishop’s encounter with the president, and I think that point has been made. And I think it’s not something we really want to dwell further on,” he said.

Continue Reading