Ex-Chief Justice, Alfa Belgore, Quizzed Over (P&ID) $9.6b Contract Verdict

* Detectives debrief three senior lawyers – NNPC
subsidiary’s chiefs interrogated

DETECTIVES of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) on Tuesday grilled a former Chief Justice of Nigeria,
Justice Alfa Belgore, in connection with the $9.6 billion judgment
debt against the Federal Government, TheNation reports.

The Process and Industrial Developments (P&ID) is the
beneficiary of the judgment.

Also quizzed are the Deputy Manager, Mechanical/Facilities of
the National Petroleum Investment Management Services (NAPIMS), Mr.
Gbolahan Okesanya and 10 others.

Investigation by The Nation showed that Belgore was invited for
his alleged roles before the Arbitration Panel.

The ex-CJN was alleged to have testified against the Federal
Government in London on the controversial contract.

It was not clear last night if the ex-CJN was detained.

He did not respond to text messages sent to him last night.

EFCC’s detectives have debriefed three senior lawyers, who are
part of the country’s defence in the controversial deal.

A source, who spoke in confidence, said “the former CJN was
invited for a friendly chat.”

The source added: “In some of the proceedings of the arbitration
panel, Justice Alfa Belgore was alleged to have made a
representation to the Arbitration Panel. Based on his submission,
the investigative panel decided to interact with him.

“We are working on clues that his alleged submission was against
the Federal Government. We want to establish the veracity of
this.”

The source added: “The EFCC has interrogated more than 10 others
connected with the Gas Supply and Processing Agreement (GSPA) with
P&ID, including the Deputy Manager, Mechanical/ Facilities of
the National Petroleum Investment Management Services (NAPIMS), Mr.
Gbolahan Okesanya.

“I can conveniently tell you that we have gone far in probing
the circumstances which led to the award of the contract.”

It was also learnt that the delay in constituting President
Muhammadu Buhari’s first term cabinet appeared to have made it
difficult to arrest the $6.9billion judgment in 2016.

Also, non-presentation of proper documentation to the High Court
of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) accounted for
the legal mess the nation is facing.

The trial judge, Justice Phillips, who dismissed an application
by the Ministry of Petroleum Resources on February 10, 2016, gave
these reasons in his order.

The ministry of Petroleum Resources had approached the court to
challenge the Part Final Award.

He said Nigeria did not present compelling reasons to halt the
award over four times the statutory limit.

The P&ID has given conditions for an amicable settlement of
the case.

It said although during the arbitration, Nigeria claimed to be
interested in reaching an amicable settlement with P&ID, it
never made a serious offer.

It said apart from the judgment debt, Nigeria lost the
opportunity to add 2,000 megawatts of power to its generation
capacity through the Gas Supply and Processing Agreement
(GSPA).

According to a document, exclusively obtained by The Nation,
Nigeria is in a dilemma because of alleged tardiness in handling
the matter.

The court document revealed that the Ministry of Petroleum
Resources filed an application under Part 62.9 of the Civil
Procedure Rules to extend the 28-day time period in which to apply
to challenge the Part Final Award by the Arbitration Tribunal of 17
July 2015.

Those on the arbitration panel were Lord Leonard Hoffman, Chief
Bayo Ojo and Sir Anthony Evans.

The proceedings at the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench
Division confirmed that Nigeria took things for granted by wasting
time.

In his order, Justice Phillips said Nigeria’s move to arrest the
award outside the statutory time limit was unacceptable.

The order reads in part: “The application under S. 68 of the
Arbitration Act is made more than four months after the expiry of
the 28-day time limit. Compelling reasons would have to be shown to
justify an extension of over four times the statutory time
limit.

“In this case, the delay is said to have been caused by the fact
that the new President of the Federation of Nigeria, sworn in on 29
May 2015 did not appoint an Attorney-General until 11 November 2015
with the result that London solicitors were instructed in relation
to the application until 13 November 2015.

“Even if the absence of an Attorney-General was an insuperable
obstacle to instructing London solicitors (which is far from clear
view of the evidence filed by the defendant), the claimant could
and should have prepared all documentation in readiness so as to
proceed with expedition once London solicitors were instructed, not
least in view of the fact that the claimant continued to
participate in the arbitration proceedings throughout the period
with the benefit of external counsel.

“In the event documentation was not provided to London
solicitors until 25 November and the application under S.68 was not
issued until 40 days after London solicitors were first instructed,
a period in excess of the statutory time limit.

“No good explanation is given for that further excessive period
of delay. In those circumstances, it is not appropriate to extend
time.

“In refusing to extend time, I further take into account that
the grounds of appeal have no merit.

“As to ground A, it is incorrect to say that the Tribunal found
that the claimant was not in breach of Article 6(a): the finding
was that the claimant had put itself in a position where it was
impossible for it to comply with Article 6(a) by virtue of its own
breach of Article 6(b). There was no internal inconsistency in the
Tribunal’s reasons.

“As to ground (B), the Tribunal clearly addressed the actual
authority of claimant to enter and perform the GSPA, holding that
that was the prima facie position and rejecting the claimant’s
arguments to displace that starting point. There was no ambiguity
or confusion in its findings between the concepts of capacity and
authority.

“As to ground (C), there was a clear and sufficient finding that
the breach of Article 6(b), rending it impossible to perform
Article 6(a), was a repudiatory breach. The contention that
separate consideration should have been given to a breach of
Article 6(b) alone is misconceived.”

The Irish firm gave synopsis of how the contract was conceived
and how things went wrong.

In a statement, the P&ID said it is left for Buhari
administration to come to terms with the award and decide whether
to continue with delaying tactics to postpone the inevitable.

It also asked the Federal Government to “atone for its previous
mistakes and reach a settlement that will allow the country to move
forward.”

The company’s position was made known by Brendan Cahill, who is
a co-founder of P&ID.

The statement said in part: “Process and Industrial Developments
Limited (P&ID) is an engineering and project management company
founded and led by Michael Quinn and Brendan Cahill who had over 30
years’ experience of project management and execution in
Nigeria.

“P&ID conceived and planned a project that would deliver
much-needed power generation to millions of Nigerians, and create
profitable by-products for sale on the international market. Under
an agreement with Nigeria, P&ID would build a state-of-the-art
gas processing plant to refine natural gas (“wet gas”) into “lean
gas” that Nigeria would receive free of charge to power its
national electric grid. ”

“The Buhari administration continues to incur costs in fighting
this battle in the UK and US courts, and due to its failure to
comply with court procedures, has been forced to pay some costs of
P&ID’s counsel.

“The re-elected Buhari administration must come to terms with
the award and decide whether to continue with delaying tactics to
postpone the inevitable, or if the new government has the courage
to atone for its previous mistakes and reach a settlement that will
allow the country to move forward.”

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!