A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr Robert Clarke, has reacted to the recent judgement delivered by a British Court in the case between the Federal Government and the Process and Industrial Developments (P&ID).
Clarke who was a guest on Channels Television’s Politics Today on Thursday questioned the legality of the verdict that ordered the stay execution of the $9.6bn judgment delivered in favour of Process and Industrial Developments in August this year.
“I think we have to get the judgement set aside. I have not had the opportunity of reading, it calls for arbitration for so many years in international fora and this government was not aware.
“I am too clear that the judgement that was being enforced today has been delivered for some 24 or 30 months ago. And we have been sitting really wrong. Is it really a scam? If it is a scam, God has helped Nigeria a lot. We can use it as a defence,” he stated.
When asked for his legal views on the judgement, Clarke noted that certain questions need to be asked relating to the development.
One of such is to ascertain whether the verdict is a scam aimed at siphoning billions from the coffers of the Nigerian government.
“How long will a judgment against the Nigerian government be? Who are the lawyers representing Nigeria? Did it take a year, two years or three years? All these are very necessary to know whether there is a scam or there is no scam,” he said.
Speaking further, the respected lawyers wondered if Nigeria had foreign lawyers to represent her in the United Kingdom.
His comments come shortly after the Federal Government said it is pleased with the UK Court Stay of Execution Order of the $9.6bn judgment it delivered in favour of Process and Industrial Developments in August.
FG through the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, described the development as a positive resolution which was an important step in the government’s efforts to have the matter resolved.
The British Court had granted Nigeria’s request for leave to appeal, enabling the Federal Government to appeal the Court’s recognition of the UK Arbitration Tribunal.