The Ogun State Government, on Thursday, faulted the judicial process that led to the provisional attachment of three Nigerian government-owned aircraft in France by the Judicial Court of Paris on 7th March and 2nd August, 2024.
A Chinese company, Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd, sought several orders from the court over an aborted contract between the company and Ogun State Government, which was initiated in 2007.
In a statement signed by the Special Adviser to the Governor on Media and Strategy, Kayode Akinmade, the Ogun State government described the latest development as the new antics by the Chinese company to appropriate Nigerian assets in foreign jurisdictions, as past efforts had continually failed.
The statement described the whole legal process as nothing but a total charade with fraudulent notion, adding that the company deliberately concealed the litigation from both the Nigerian government and Ogun State, as well as their legal counsel before hurriedly securing orders of seizure.
It added that the company possibly misled the Judicial Court of Paris as to the use and nature of the assets it sought to attach and did not made full disclosure to the court as required by law.
According to the statement, Ogun State, together with the Federal Government, had already taken immediate action to ensure that those provisional attachments are lifted quickly, even as it accused the company of reneging on the earlier discussion for an amicable resolution of the case.
It likened the case to that of P&ID, describing it as very unfortunate case of unscrupulous individuals masquerading as foreign investors with the sole aim of defrauding Ogun State and Nigeria at large.
The statement said: “On 14 August 2024, the attention of the Ogun State Government was drawn to the provisional attachment of three Nigerian government owned aircrafts in France by the Chinese company, Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. (“Zhongshan”). Ogun State also learned of two orders of the Judicial Court of Paris dated 7 March 2024 and 12 August 2024 respectively, both obtained by Zhongshan without notice being duly given to the Federal Government or Nigeria, Ogun State or their legal counsel.
“This is the latest in a series of ill-advised attempts by Zhongshan to attach Nigerian-owned assets in foreign jurisdictions, none of which have to date led to the recovery of any sums from Nigeria.
“Each of the three aircrafts is used solely for sovereign purposes and as such are immune from attachment under international and French law. In obtaining the provisional attachments, Zhongshan deliberately withheld information from the Federal Government of Nigeria, Ogun State and their legal counsel.
“Shockingly, it also appears to have misled the Judicial Court of Paris as to the use and nature of the assets it seeks to attach and not made full disclosure to the court as required by law.
“Ogun State in conjunction with the Federal Government of Nigeria, has taken swift action to ensure that these provisional attachments are lifted without delay.
“Just like the P&ID case, this is another unfortunate case of unscrupulous individuals masquerading as foreign investors with the sole aim of defrauding Ogun State and Nigeria.
“It should be recalled that the underlying contract between Ogun State and Zhongshan was executed in 2007, 12 years before the present administration, for the management of a free-trade zone. The parties entered into a dispute in 2015 with arbitration commencing in 2016.
“By 2019, when the current State Administration took office, the hearing at the arbitration had been all but concluded. The Arbitral Panel awarded over 60 million USD against the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) which was a co-Defendant, when all Zhongshan had done was to build a perimeter fence around the free-trade zone. Needless to say this was a bad/unfair decision.
“The present State Administration could not in all good conscience allow such an unconscionable and baseless decision, which would dissipate the commonwealth of the good people of Ogun State, to stand.
“Accordingly, and based on erudite legal advice, this Administration resolved to resist the enforcement of the award. The resistance was successful in 8 different jurisdictions. Currently, there are pending appeals against recognition orders issued in both the US and UK.
“On the further advice of counsel, Ogun State also engaged Zhongshan in settlement discussions on reasonable terms. The last meeting attended by several officials of Ogun State, including His Excellency Prince Dapo Abiodun – the Governor of Ogun State, and the Honourable Attorney General/Minister of Justice lasted for three days, in September 2023 in London.
“Zhongshan’s initial reasonable readiness to consider Ogun State’s offer, was surprisingly reversed by the second day, with an insistence on the payment of the full debt. This led to a breakdown of the mediation, with parties agreeing to meet again in the first quarter of this year.
“Since then, Zhongshan has in bad faith been evasive and instead embarked on a series of enforcement proceedings which the legal team appointed by the FGN and Ogun State have successfully opposed. In cases similar to the present one where Zhongshan obtained an ex-parte order, Ogun State has successfully set aside the orders.
“We naturally regret any embarrassment this has caused the Federal Government of Nigeria, HE President Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, GCFR and the good people of Ogun State and re-affirm our commitment to constantly and consistently protect the integrity of the nation and its assets. We have taken all necessary legal steps to ensure that this spurious and baseless order is vacated within the shortest possible time. As a sovereign nation, whose assets are protected by laws of sovereign immunity, we vow to resist any attempts at blackmail and theatrics clearly designed to extort and embarrass our dear country.
“It is important to note that Ogun State never gave up on a reasonable settlement option, with the most recent letter sent to Zhongshan, last week. Unfortunately, Zhongshan only responded after obtaining this latest order. A reasonable and objectively quantifiable settlement figure has always been our preference and continues to be an option in the resolution of this protracted dispute.”
