The recent seizure of Nigerian presidential jets in Europe, stemming from a contract dispute with a Chinese firm, has thrust Nigeria’s approach to international treaties and agreements into the spotlight.
At the heart of this controversy lies a dispute between Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd and Ogun State, dating back to 2010.
In pursuit of enforcing its arbitration awards of over $70 million against Nigeria, Zhongshan has confiscated several Nigerian assets overseas, including two properties in Liverpool, a Dassault Falcon 7X in Paris, a Boeing 737, and an Airbus A330 valued at over $100 million, with the Bombardier 6000 in Canada being the latest.
The seizure of presidential aircraft – including a newly acquired jet by French authorities following a court order – is not merely an embarrassment; it’s a glaring indication of systemic failures in Nigeria’s handling of international contracts and disputes.
The federal government’s characterisation of Zhongshan’s actions as “fraudulent” raises questions about the due diligence conducted before entering into such agreements.
While the government maintains that it has no direct contractual obligations to the Chinese firm, the fact that Nigeria acted as a sovereign guarantor for Ogun State implicates the nation as a whole.
This blurring of lines between state and federal responsibilities in international dealings is a recipe for confusion and potential exploitation. Moreover, the incident underscores a troubling trend of Nigerian states entering into treaties and agreements without federal consent.
In our view, such unilateral actions by state governments not only undermine national sovereignty but also expose the country to significant legal and financial risks. The federal structure of Nigeria should not be a loophole for circumventing proper procedures in international engagements.
The seizure of presidential jets, which are symbols of national sovereignty, is particularly concerning. While the Chinese company has released one aircraft as a “goodwill gesture,” the fact that such assets were vulnerable to seizure points to a critical weakness in Nigeria’s international legal position.
It’s a wake-up call for the government to reassess its approach to sovereign immunity and the protection of national assets abroad.
This incident is not an isolated case but part of a broader pattern of legal challenges facing Nigeria on the international stage.
Reports suggest that the federal government is embroiled in numerous court cases over alleged breaches of contracts, with potential liabilities of N7.58 trillion if the nation loses the cases.
According to an investigation by a media house, the administration of President Bola Tinubu will likely spend about N341.23 billion on settling judgment debts between 2023 and 2027. These judgment debts were listed as promissory notes in a document titled ‘Schedule of Promissory Notes Issued by Category as of September 30, 2022,’ by the Debt Management Office.
The prospect of spending hundreds of billions on settling judgment debts over the next few years is a sobering reminder of the financial consequences of mismanaged international agreements.
However, it’s not all doom and gloom. Nigeria’s recent victory in overturning the $11 billion judgment debt in favor of Process and Industrial Developments Limited (P&ID) in the UK courts demonstrates that with proper legal strategy and due diligence, the country can protect its interests.
The court’s finding that P&ID had engaged in fraud and bribery underscores the importance of thorough scrutiny in international dealings.
To address these challenges, Nigeria must undertake comprehensive reforms in its approach to international treaties and agreements.
We strongly suggest that the federal and state governments implement stringent due diligence processes for all international engagements, involving legal experts, economists, and relevant stakeholders to assess potential risks and benefits.
We also need to develop robust strategies to protect national assets abroad, including a review of sovereign immunity provisions in international agreements.
Furthermore, laws should be enacted that clearly delineate the roles of federal and state governments in international engagements, ensuring a unified national approach.
The government should foster a culture of strict compliance with international obligations across all levels of government to rebuild Nigeria’s credibility on the global stage.
Consequently, the incident with the Chinese firm and the seizure of presidential jets should serve as a catalyst for change. It’s an opportunity for Nigeria to reassess its position in the international community and take concrete steps to strengthen its standing.
The country’s ability to attract foreign investment, participate in global trade, and maintain diplomatic relations hinges on its reputation as a reliable and responsible international partner.
Furthermore, this situation calls for a national conversation on the importance of honoring agreements and the consequences of defaulting on international obligations. It’s crucial for both government officials and the public to understand that actions taken today can have far-reaching implications for future generations.
As Nigeria navigates these challenges, it must strike a delicate balance between asserting its sovereignty and fulfilling its international obligations.
The country’s leaders must recognise that in today’s interconnected world, isolationism is not an option. Instead, Nigeria must strive to be a respected player on the global stage, known for its integrity and reliability in international dealings.
