The Ogun State government has strongly criticized the recent judicial actions that led to the provisional seizure of three Nigerian presidential jets by the Judicial Court of Paris.
The court issued the seizure orders on March 7 and August 2, 2024, as part of an ongoing legal dispute involving the Chinese firm Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd.
The aircraft in question—a Dassault Falcon 7X, a Boeing 737, and a newly acquired Airbus A330 were in France and Switzerland for maintenance when the court orders were executed. The Dassault Falcon 7X was located at Le Bourget Airport in Paris, while the Boeing 737 and Airbus A330 were at Basel-Mulhouse Airport in Switzerland.
This dispute originated from a failed contract between the Ogun State government and Zhongshan, dating back to 2007. Zhongshan pursued court orders related to the disagreement, leading to the attachment of Nigerian assets overseas.
In a statement released on Thursday, Kayode Akinmade, the Special Adviser to the Ogun State Governor on Media and Strategy, condemned Zhongshan’s legal maneuvers. The Ogun State government accused the Chinese company of attempting to unjustly seize Nigerian assets abroad and criticized their methods as lacking transparency.
According to the statement, Zhongshan concealed the ongoing litigation from both the Nigerian government and Ogun State authorities, as well as their legal representatives. This lack of disclosure allowed the company to obtain the court orders without fully informing the court about the nature and purpose of the assets in question.
The Ogun State government, in coordination with the Federal Government, has reportedly initiated actions to overturn the provisional attachments on the jets. The statement also accused Zhongshan of reneging on previous negotiations aimed at resolving the dispute amicably.
Drawing parallels to the controversial P&ID case, the Ogun State government described the situation as another example of unscrupulous entities posing as foreign investors with the intent to defraud Nigerian institutions.
The statement read: “On August 14, 2024, the Ogun State Government became aware of the provisional seizure of three Nigerian government-owned aircraft in France by Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. (Zhongshan).
“We learned that the Judicial Court of Paris issued orders on March 7, 2024, and August 12, 2024, both of which were obtained by Zhongshan without proper notification to the Federal Government, Ogun State, or their legal counsel.
“This latest action by Zhongshan is part of a broader pattern of ill-advised attempts to seize Nigerian assets abroad, none of which have succeeded in recovering any funds from Nigeria.
“The three aircraft in question are used exclusively for sovereign purposes and are therefore protected from attachment under both international and French law. In obtaining the provisional attachments, Zhongshan deliberately withheld key information from the Federal Government of Nigeria, Ogun State, and their legal advisors.
“Similar to the P&ID case, this is yet another instance of individuals masquerading as foreign investors with the sole aim of defrauding Ogun State and Nigeria.
“It is important to note that the original contract between Ogun State and Zhongshan was signed in 2007, 12 years before the current administration, and concerned the management of a free-trade zone.
“A dispute arose between the parties in 2015, leading to arbitration in 2016. By the time the current administration took office in 2019, the arbitration was nearly concluded.
“The Arbitral Panel ultimately awarded over $60 million against the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), which was a co-defendant in the case, despite the fact that all Zhongshan had done was construct a perimeter fence around the free-trade zone. This decision was clearly unjust and unfair.
“The current administration could not, in good conscience, allow such an egregious and baseless ruling to stand, as it would deplete the resources of Ogun State’s citizens.
“Therefore, based on sound legal advice, this administration decided to resist the enforcement of the award. This resistance has been successful in eight different jurisdictions.
“Currently, there are pending appeals against recognition orders issued in both the US and the UK.”
