Ogun State Should’ve Taken Erring Chinese Firm To Court – Justice Micheal Aondoakaa

Former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Micheal Aondoakaa (SAN) has come out to speak on the seized presidential aircraft by China.

He recently had his say while speaking to the press, and Nigerians have been reacting.

According to him, Ogun State should have gone to the state high court to terminate any contractual agreement with China after their disagreement, and failure to do things the right way is what led to the recent seizing of aircrafts.

He added that Chinese nationals who invest here must always be protected, and their investment cannot be arbitrarily seized by the government.

His words, “First and foremost, there have been two treaties, which are a bilateral trade agreement between the Chinese government and the Federal Government and, a 2001 bilateral treaty that Nigeria signed during former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration. It is still in force between Nigeria and China. Chinese nationals who invest here will be protected and their investment will not be arbitrarily seized by the government. It is the same way they say that Nigerians who invest in China will enjoy protection.

There’s a particular Article 4 of the agreement that indicates that the government cannot just wake up one day and say I am seizing this company, I am terminating this agreement, and in the agreement, they have made provisions for arbitration that in case there is a dispute between the contracting party in this case, Ogun State and the Chinese investor, are to explore diplomatic channel first.

Ogun State cannot go to have diplomatic channels with the Chinese government. The punishment for corruption is death sentence. I wouldn’t know what Ogun State did but then, there’s another procedure for arbitration if Ogun State felt that there was an infraction. There’s another provision in the agreement that says they could go to court. So, Ogun State could have gone to court to terminate the transaction.

Luckily, it was a contractual relationship. So, Ogun State could have gone to the state High Court and said, ‘Terminate this transaction.’ I don’t know whether Ogun State went or not. It was said that the governor terminated the agreement because there were criminal aspects unless those criminal aspects were proven. If they are not proven, then it is a difficult situation for us.

The problem I have with old governments in Nigeria is that when you wake up in an agreement and say that there is criminality, there is a court of law for you to go to because you are a contracting party, and the contracting party is laid by the governor of that state. So, if Ogun State wakes up today and says, ‘I am terminating an agreement’, it means that Ogun State is a judge in its case, but I don’t have facts. I don’t know what Ogun State did.

The agreement is wide and something we should try to avoid in the future. The agreement said there should be three arbitrators, the contracting parties should appoint one and the Chinese people would appoint one. The two appointed arbitrators would appoint the third arbitrator. That was done but unfortunately, the clause for arbitration did not put the seat of arbitration, did not put the place of arbitration. That means that the arbitrators were at liberty to sit wherever they wanted.

The judge has no power to order arrest or compel witnesses or production of documents. So, it is the local courts, and in this case, they chose London, so it is the local courts in London that the rules will apply. Even the rules to apply were not stated clearly in the arbitration. So, it became difficult. The arbitration sat in London and gave a final award against Nigeria for compensation.

So, I think that is an argument that is pending, and one of the planes was released because it was discovered that the execution was done on the wrong property. The property executed enjoys absolute immunity and Nigeria has a right there to seek to recover the presidential planes because presidential planes are not used for public commercial business.”