Listen to article
|
Professor Ademola Abbas, an expert in international law, is recommending that the Federal Government take a fresh look at the Bilateral Investment Treaty with China, signed back in 2001. The agreement was meant to encourage investment between the two countries, but Abbas thinks it’s time to evaluate whether it’s still working in Nigeria’s favor.
Professor Abbas also cautioned that, in the pursuit of Foreign Direct Investments, the Federal Government and states must not compromise their regulatory standards. He emphasized the importance of maintaining vigilance to ensure that investment opportunities do not come at the expense of national interests.
Professor Abbas shared his insights on the Bilateral Investment Treaty with China during an appearance on “Inside Sources,” a sociopolitical program hosted by Laolu Akande on Channels Television, which aired on Friday.
“When countries are looking for investments, sometimes, they let down their guards and try not to be as stringent as they should be,” he said.
Professor Abbas cautioned that, in its efforts to attract investors, the government should avoid making concessions that ultimately harm the country’s interests. He noted that Nigeria has previously made the mistake of prioritizing courtesy over self-preservation, to its own detriment.
A French court’s ruling has given Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Limited the authority to seize Nigeria’s presidential aircraft. This move is the latest development in a dispute that has been ongoing for some time.
Read also: Reconsider Presidential Jet Purchase — Obi To Lawmakers
In the dispute involving an arbitration award, the court in Paris ruled in favour of the Chinese firm, allowing it to seize three presidential jets on routine maintenance in France as “security” for claims in a decades-long judicial matter between the foreign company and the Ogun State government.
Abbas faulted Article 9 in the existing BIT between Nigeria and China labelling it as a “misnomer” and a “grievous error” that should not have made it into the treaty.
He said the article “confers right on third parties who are not party to the treaty” even though the treaty was between two countries.
“There are 13 Articles in the treaty but Articles 8 and 9 permit resolution mechanisms in terms of conflicts between any of the countries and their nationals instead of disagreements between the two countries,” Abbas said.
Abbas said the Federal Government created a misnomer through Article 9 of the treaty by allowing a national to go after the Nigerian Government when the agreement should have been solely between Nigeria and China.
“It could have just limited the whole thing to arbitration between China and Nigeria. If there was no Article 9 in that BIT.
“What could have happened in this situation that a Chinese company has been wronged, the Chinese company would apply what is known as espousal doctrine meaning that if there is a treaty between two countries and a party is injured by one of those two countries, that person cannot go after the other country; rather, you will go to your country to espouse your right. So, it will be country to country.
“If Article 9 had not been there, Zhongshan would have returned to China to take it up with Nigeria. And China would have gone to the International Court of Justice or find a way to diplomatically resolve this with Nigeria,” he said.
Asked to suggest ways out of the debacle, the law professor said, “First, the way out is for the country to go back to the drawing board and look at this kind of treaty and try to understand the kind of arbitration clauses permitted. Maybe if the government was aware of Article 9, this wouldn’t have happened.
It was suggested that a unified approach and cooperation between the federal government and state authorities would be beneficial. The Chinese were said to have deliberately avoided pursuing claims against Ogun State, presumably because they believed it would be futile.