Miffed by what he described as system failure arising from the now infamous $11billion judgement debt suit filed against Nigeria by the Process & Industrial Developments Limited (P&ID), Chief Moses Adediran, a lawyer and erstwhile director at the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) said if there were proper checks and balances the country would have been saved the embarrassment in the first place.
While reacting over favourable outcome of the case in which P&ID lost its $11bn arbitration award against Nigeria last Monday in the United Kingdom, when the Business and Property Court in London halted the enforcement of the P&ID $11bn award against Nigeria in a case marked CL-2019-000752, Adediran said but for providence Nigeria would have lost out.
It may be recalled that in the judgment delivered by Justice Robert Knowles, it was held that the process through which P&ID secured a 2010 contract to build a gas processing plant in Calabar, Cross River State, was fraudulent.
According to him, there is a need to prevent the country from falling into such booby traps in the future. “Going forward, it is important for policymakers to be properly guided because when you look at the fact of that case, what P&ID went to court for it was that they had a contract and there were some preliminary things that ought to be done before they can negotiate the contract and that is the supply of gas by Nigeria when indeed they had fulfilled their own obligations. But the idea of people bribing came later.
“By their very nature international contracts require all parties to be faithful, transparent as much as possible because you’re dealing with sovereign countries.”
The technocrat who admitted that underdeveloped countries in Africa, including Nigeria usually falls prey to certain contract agreements based on their low economic power as donor-agencies or funders pass a fait accompli on them.
Adediran who enumerated the different categories of contracts said, “Most times some of these donor-agencies or investors knowing full well that you hold the short end of the stick as a struggling nation, they force you to either sign some contracts with obnoxious terms, or you leave. Then you have the one that people will consciously know what is wrong but then they will put their hands into it because of benefits that may accrue to them. There is also the other category of contract wherein the receiving parties are ignorant of some of these things or they are just cavalier in their attitude.”
Speaking from the point of view of a lawyer, he said, “Ordinarily what should be uppermost for you is to go into any transaction and be ready to protect the interest of your client or the party that you are representing. That interest should be very paramount in your mind; you must look at the terms that may be so adverse to that of the principal’s interest. These are the three types of contract scenarios you have.”
On the way forward, he said at the implementation of policies conscious effort must be made to understand the terms of the contracts being signed.
He further reiterated that policymakers must think through any policy briefs properly and look at the pros and cons with a view to understanding the obligations to be fulfilled.
“If you at the P&ID contract there were supposed to be exchanges between both parties but everything was opaque either deliberately by those who were involved ostensibly for their own selfish aggrandizement. So, it is that kind of pitfall that we should guard against in the near future.”
Pressed further, he said, “At the level of signing a contract, I think it must be streamlined, especially if it has to do with anything that would involve foreign currency. What I’m saying in effect is that so many ministries, departments and agencies must know about it. There must be institutional memory so that if any other government comes they will look at what has happened with regards to obligations, liabilities, assets, and all should be highlighted and put before whoever is taking over.
“Above all, during the formulation of policies before the implementation, it is very crucial for the policies to be examined thoroughly to see the practicality, deliverability, and all because you really cannot rule out the human factor in everything.”
He was however quick to admit that there are people with corrupt tendencies who may be persuaded to defraud the system, for such persons, he would rather they be put in check. “The only way we can put paid to all these issues of infractions and corruption plaguing us as a nation is for those we put in charge of critical assignments to be properly scrutinised to ensure that they live above board. At every level, there must be accountability and transparency so that things don’t turn out bad for the country in the end.”
A situation where the Permanent Secretary, Minister and other people with reporting lines do not know about certain things or are not carried along when some crucial decisions are being made or deeds of contracts involving such humongous sums of money capable of setting the country backward in terms of loss of hard-earned foreign exchange, is appalling indeed, he stressed.
“It’s not just limited to the P&ID alone; you will recall that in the immediate past administration some of the serving ministers then revealed that they were not aware of certain decisions taken in their ministries.”
While disagreeing that there are no consequences he would rather such punishments are swift and not unnecessarily bogged down by bureaucratic bottlenecks as have been the case in most of the time.
“Apart from having commensurate punishments for offences committed, it can even serve as a deterrent to others that this infraction you have committed and the spoils you have accumulated, you stand to lose them all.”
The Nation
