Investigation

$150m Suit: Court Admits Bablink Witness’ Documents In Evidence

Published

8 months ago

January 26, 2024

Justice Edward Okpe of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Nyanya has admitted in evidence, several documents tendered by Bablink Resources Nig. Ltd. against Brentex Petroleum Ltd and China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Co. Ltd.

At a resumed hearing on Thursday, Michael Aondoakaa (SAN), who appeared for the claimants (Bablink), called his first witness in the matter.

The claimant’s witness, Mr. Ganni Isiaka, a director in Bablink, adopted his witness statement on oath as several documents were tendered and admitted through him.

However, counsel for the defendants, H. M Danjuma sought leave that his right to object to all the documents tendered by the claimant be reserved for final address, and the same application was granted.

Nevertheless, the tendered documents were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits BRN 1 to BRN 19 respectively.

Thereafter, the defendant’s Counsel sought an adjournment because they were not ready for cross-examination.

Earlier, an effort by Aondoakaa to call the claimant’s first witness was vehemently opposed by a lawyer to the defendants.

Danjuma told the court that the defendants had applied to the vacation Judge for the matter to be re-assigned and that the said application was granted by the vacation Judge.

However, the presiding judge, Edward Okpe informed the defendant’s counsel that the case file before him which is marked CV/589/2023, had not at any time been transmitted to the chief judge for re-assignment.

The judge stated that it was rather the case file in motions marked M/2083/23 and M/2084/23 that were transmitted to the chief judge for re-assignment.

Given the foregoing, counsel to the defendants, then said they were not ready to proceed as they needed time to put their house in order.

Reacting, Aondoakaa dismissed the defendants’ reason for an adjournment and urged the court to discount the application for adjournment and proceed with the hearing of the matter.

But Danjuma replied that his application for adjournment was on the grounds of a fair hearing.
However, in a bench ruling on the application for adjournment, the court held that the application by the defendant’s counsel for adjournment has no leg upon which it can stand, saying that fair hearing is for all the parties as well as the court.

Justice Okpe added that the defendants have not in any way been deprived of their right to a fair hearing but the same has been accorded to them as they were served with the Writ of Summons since December 18, 2023, but have failed to file a defense even when they were in court on the last adjourned date when the matter was adjourned to today for hearing.

It was the court’s opinion that a fair hearing is also for the claimant, and for the defendant to not be ready and then seek adjournment to the detriment of the claimant who is ready to proceed is also an encroachment on the claimant’s right to a fair hearing.

Consequently, the defendant’s application for adjournment was refused by the court and the claimant was granted leave to call its first witness.

The matter has been adjourned with the consent of parties to the February 13, 2024, for the continuation of the hearing.

Share on Facebook

Investigation

Presidency exposes Chinese Company’s failed attempts to strip Nigeria’s assets abroad

Published

3 weeks ago

August 15, 2024

The Gleamer

The Presidency is aware of the various failed attempts by a Chinese company, Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Limited, to take over offshore assets of the Federal Government of Nigeria through subterfuge.

The Federal Government is not under any contractual obligation with the company. The case in which Zhongshan is trying to use every unorthodox means to strip our offshore assets is between the company and the Ogun State Government.

The federal government is fully aware of efforts being made by the Ogun state government to reach an amicable resolution to the matter.

It must be said without any equivocation that Zhongshan has no solid ground to demand restitution from the Ogun State Government based on the facts regarding the 2007 contract between the company and the State Government to manage a free-trade zone.

When the contract with Ogun State was revoked in 2015, the company had only erected a perimeter fence on the land earmarked for a free trade zone.

While the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice are working with the Ogun State Government on an amicable resolution, Zhongshan obtained two orders from the Judicial Court of Paris dated March 7, 2024, and August 12, 2024, without any notice being duly served on the Federal Government of Nigeria and Ogun State Government.

This arm-twisting tactic by the Chinese company is the latest in a long list of failed moves to attach Nigerian government-owned assets to foreign jurisdictions.

Material facts in the transaction between the Ogun State Government and Zhongshan point to another P&ID case in which unscrupulous and questionable individuals falsely present themselves as investors with the sole objective of cheating and scamming Governments in Africa.

Undoubtedly, Zhongshan withheld vital information and misled the Judicial Court in Paris into attaching the Nigerian government’s presidential jets, which are on routine maintenance in France. The use and nature of the Presidential jets as assets of a Sovereign entity whose assets are protected by diplomatic immunity forbid any foreign Court from issuing an order against them.

We are convinced the Chinese company misled the Judicial Court of Paris regarding the use and nature of the assets it seeks to attach and did not fully disclose to the court as required by law.

This same Chinese company had tried to enforce its questionable judgment in the UK and USA but failed.

Like the P&ID case, foreign companies are trying to defraud Nigeria with the collaboration of some bureaucrats. Zhongshan appeared to have sold the judgment they got to a venture capitalist seeking to make money by embarrassing the Federal Government and President Bola Tinubu.

We want to assure Nigerians that the Federal Government is working with the Ogun State Government to discharge this frivolous order in Paris immediately.
Nigerian Government will always work to protect our national assets from predators and shylocks who masquerade as investors.

Background to the Zhongshan Fucheng Case:

A contract between Ogun State and Zhongshan to manage a free-trade zone was executed in 2007. The parties entered into a dispute in 2015, and arbitration began in 2016.

By 2019, the arbitration hearing had been concluded. The Arbitral Panel awarded over 60 million USD against the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), a co-defendant, when all Zhongshan had done was build a perimeter fence around the free-trade zone.

Based on legal advice, the Ogun State Government resolved to resist the enforcement of the award. The resistance was successful in 8 different jurisdictions. There are pending appeals against recognition orders issued in both the US and UK.

Ogun State also engaged Zhongshan in settlement discussions on reasonable terms. The last meeting, held in September 2023 in London, lasted for three days and was attended by several officials of Ogun State, including Governor Dapo Abiodun and the Attorney General/Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi.

Zhongshan’s initial reasonable readiness to consider Ogun State’s offer was surprisingly reversed by the second day when it insisted on the government paying the full arbitration 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 been evasive. Instead, it embarked on a series of enforcement proceedings, which the legal team appointed by the FGN and Ogun State successfully opposed.

In cases similar to the present one, where Zhongshan obtained an ex-parte order, Ogun State successfully set aside the orders.

Ogun State has not given up on a reasonable settlement option, with the most recent letter sent to Zhongshan last week. Zhongshan only responded after obtaining this latest illegal order.

Share on Facebook