Nigeria has secured a landmark victory in its pursuit to overturn a $10 billion judgement awarded against it in a case with Process and Industrial Developments (P&ID).
Process & Industrial Developments, is company based in the British Virgin Islands, that signed a contract with the Federal Government for a gas supply deal in 2010.
However, according to P&ID, Nigeria failed to work with the terms of the deal, which made the firm carry out an arbitration action against the FG before a London tribunal in March 2013.
The tribunal then asked FG to pay P&ID $6.6 billion arbitration award, which then accrued interest which is now worth $10 billion.
Nigeria has since been making moves to overturn the judgement and has gotten court clearance to request documents from a P&ID stakeholder and review bank statements of ex-president Goodluck Jonathan, as well as that of former petroleum ministers, Diezani Alison-Madueke and Rilwanu Lukman.
Federal Government then approached the court in July, establishing that the contract was awarded on illegal terms by bribing some certain people to win the contract.
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on August 18 also arraigned James Nolan, a Briton, and six companies over their alleged involvement in the contract.
Delivering the new judgement on Thursday, Ross Cranston, a judge of the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, has now granted Nigeria’s application for an extension of time and relief from sanctions, theCable reports.
In the ruling, Sir Ross Cranston, found that;
Nigeria has established a strong prima facie case that the GSPA was procured by bribes paid to insiders as part of a larger scheme to defraud Nigeria.
There is also a strong prima facie case that P&ID’s main witness in the arbitration, Mr Quinn, gave perjured evidence to the tribunal and that, contrary to that evidence, P&ID was not in the position to perform the contract.
The Judge added;
As to the jurisdiction and liability stages of the arbitration, there is a prima facie case that they were tainted by the conduct of Nigeria’s advocate, Mr Shasore.
It seems to me that Nigeria has made a good case that, at the time it took part or continued to take part in the arbitration, it did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the grounds it now advances.
