* As Defence Lawyer, Shasore, Reacts To Allegations in P&ID Vs FRN Case
By Isreal Onwudiwe (Energy Reporter)
The Buhari Media Organisation (BMO) has applauded Nigeria's landmark victory in the $10Billion lawsuit instituted by Process and Industrial Developments (P&ID), a foreign company, over a gas supply and processing agreement with Nigeria in 2010.
The BMO in a statement signed by its Chairman Niyi Akinsiju and Secretary Cassidy Madueke, recalled that the company had claimed that Nigeria breached the terms of the contract, following which it took legal action and secured an arbitral award of $10Billion against Nigeria.
"Following this arbitrary award Nigeria appealed the judgement and provided sufficient evidence that the entire process was marred with malpractices and bribery, hence rendering the contract a nullity.
"In fact, Nigerian lawyers informed the court, presided by Ross Cranston, a judge of the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, that P&ID officials paid a bribe to get the contract.
"Having reviewed the case as presented by the Nigerian legal team, the judge on Thursday granted Nigeria’s application and granted Nigeria an extension of time and relief from sanctions".
The Buhari Media Organisation says it considers the judgement a victory for Nigerians and President Muhammadu Buhari administration whose single-minded determination and commitment ensured that Nigeria is not ripped off by a foreign company.
The group noted that "President Muhammadu Buhari has brought a new philosophy to governance as decisions and policies are made for the overall interest of the people, rather than narrow, selfish and clique interests.
"We hope that with the reversal of the phoney award, P&ID and its collaborators will see the futility of using corruption to secure phoney contracts and then turn round to seek for a pay-off in foreign jurisdictions", the statement added.
In a related development, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Barrister Olasupo Shasore, has reacted to the allegations in the P&ID Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria's case. The legal luminary, in a letter at the weekend, explained that his reaction was born out of pressure on him to break my "deliberate silence about the efforts of the Federal Government of Nigeria to find recourse against the arbitral award procured by P&ID based on a corrupt and fraudulent contract.
He said his choice of silence has been the result of "my own high sense of responsibility as well as my commitment to the professional duty, which I undertook in representing the Federal Government in this case. I am relieved that the corrupt and fraudulent foundation of this case is affirmed in the recent ruling, though I am disappointed that part of the case made for that result was a case against me based on demonstrably false statements, unfounded innuendoes and spiteful personal attacks on my professional conduct and reputation".
Shasore's letter reads thus:
OLASUPO SHASORE SAN Senior Advocate of Nigeria 15 Military Street, Onikan, Lagos, Nigeria +234 803 403 0386 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Olasupo Shasore SAN: Allegations in the P&ID v FRN Case
In the last 24 hours, I have been urged to break my deliberate silence about the efforts of the Federal Government of Nigeria to find recourse against the arbitral award procured by P&ID based on a corrupt and fraudulent contract. My choice of silence has been the result of my own high sense of responsibility as well as my commitment to the professional duty, which I undertook in representing the Federal Government in this case. I am relieved that the corrupt and fraudulent foundation of this case is affirmed in the recent ruling, though I am disappointed that part of the case made for that result was a case against me based on demonstrably false statements, unfounded innuendoes and spiteful personal attacks on my professional conduct and reputation. I was instructed in this matter and accepted the instructions on behalf of my firm and to the knowledge of my partners in late 2012 and I made every effort to defend and vindicate my client at every stage with very few tools and with minimal support from within the government itself.
I represented Nigeria up until the liability stage in the arbitration. I did not represent Nigeria in the damages stage of the arbitration. Which means I was not involved when the huge sum of damages was awarded against Nigeria. The complete records will show the series of steps that I took to defend Nigeria and the several results, which I secured in that effort at various stages. None of these is consistent with the unfounded allegations that I failed to present the best available defense.
With very little or no cooperation from relevant government officials at the time, I filed a jurisdiction objection that potentially could and should indeed have terminated the case in favour of Nigeria because it was clear to us from the beginning that the contract was a scheme against Nigeria. When the then Nigerian officials failed to supply documents or any witness to defend their case, I fought liability by enlisting the support of the legal adviser of NNPC who gave evidence to the best of his knowledge when everyone else with knowledge, refused to do so.
I instructed the UK firm of Stephenson Harwood a respected international arbitration team and a leading Barrister to attempt to set aside the award on liability in England. We overcame numerous hurdles and faced a hostile tribunal, which relied on the testimony of a principal witness who had died before the hearing and whose testimony should have been discounted. It is on record that I fought hard for the tribunal to dispense with that evidence. I am happy that the falsity of that testimony has now been recorded in the High Court in England.
Indeed this was the ground on which I took the matter to the Federal High Court in Nigeria, which was the proper seat of the arbitration and successfully obtained an order setting aside the liability award. There was no basis to proceed to the damages hearing since the liability had already been set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. Indeed, Nigeria continues to rely on this order in the proceedings in the United States. In addition, I obtained an injunction restraining the parties and the tribunal from proceeding with the arbitration.
Much issue has been made about the legal fees paid. This was payment to two law firms and not exceptional or unusual in the context of such a dispute. In fact, in order to extract the best possible case for Nigeria, it was from these fees that expenses were paid to ensure attendance at hearings and meetings in the UK by witnesses for Nigeria.
Even though I reserve the right to respond to further falsehoods against me as they are published, I am however a truly patriotic Nigerian, and remain willing and committed to assisting Nigeria in the numerous stages still required to successfully defend this dispute. My commitment and professional integrity to always act in the best interest of Nigeria, who has been victimized by fraud and corruption, remains unshaken
Olasupo Shasore SAN. NNL.
