FG Requests For Reversal Of $11 billion P&ID Judgement

The London High Court judgement against Nigeria in the case against Process and Industrial Developments (P&ID) has been contested by the Federal Government.

Recall that the court had awarded P&ID a sum that has now increased to $11 billion due to accrued interest after the company accused the Federal Government of reneging on a contract to build a gas processing plant in Calabar, Cross River state.

P&ID stated that the Nigerian government didn’t fulfil its contractual obligation, as a result, sued for compensation at the Arbitration court. The country is now seeking a reversal in a case marked CL-2019-000752. 

Defending Nigeria’s stance, according to a The Cable report on Wednesday, Nigeria’s lawyer in the case, Mark Howard, said P&ID’s founders, Michael Quinn and Brendan Cahill, have an alleged track record of bribery. 

According to Howard, they were allegedly involved in corruption on an industrial scale, as their company reportedly bribed a former minister of petroleum resources, Rilwan Lukman. 

Also, a former director in the ministry of petroleum resources and Grace Taiga, and the chair of the government technical committee that reviewed the gas plant contract, Taofiq Tijani, amongst others were also reportedly financially induced. 

It was alleged that P&ID used back channels to have access to “privileged materials” by bribing the Nigerian counsel team involved in the arbitration case. 

The former Lagos attorney-general, Olasupo Shasore, legal representative of the ministry of petroleum resources, Folakemi Adelore, and the coordinator for legal services at the NNPC, Ikechukwu Oguine, were mentioned among the legal team allegedly financially induced. 

Howard said: “We see a picture of industrial scale bribery and corruption. This was not some incidental, minor contract on the side. It was fundamental to P&ID’s way of doing business.” 

The accusation also extended to P&ID lawyers, Trevor Burke and Seamus Andrew, both of whom Howard said ignored their client’s corrupt pursuit to win the case despite the evidence. This act, Howard described as a breach of their obligations to the court. 

“As with the corrupted officials and legal advisors of FRN, so too was the integrity of Mr Andrew and Mr Burke compromised,” Howard told the court. 

He further stated: “They were offered life-changing sums of money, contingent upon success in the claim, which induced them to look past evidence of blatant corruption (most obviously in the form of the FRN privileged documents) in the hope of reaching their promised pots of gold. They did so at the expense of their professional obligations.”