- Nigeria’s presidential jets were recently seized in Paris, leading to the revelation of a legal battle the country has with a Chinese company
- The Ogun State Government was named to have been involved, and previous governors have attempted to clear names
- Daniel urged for diplomatic solution over media comments while Amosun also had his reservation
In a recent development regarding the seized presidential jets in Paris, former Ogun State Governors Ibikunle Amosun and Gbenga Daniel clarified their roles in the controversy.
Ibikunle Amosun, who served as Ogun State governor from 2011 to 2019 and was a two-term senator, has expressed his willingness to collaborate with government agencies in any role to prevent Nigeria from being defrauded by Zhongfu International Investment FXE or any other organisations.
He clarified in a statement on Saturday, August 17 that the situation is a “Chinese against Chinese” and emphasised his willingness to assist government bodies in any capacity to ensure Nigeria does not fall victim to fraud.
Business rivalry between Chinese companies threatened peace in Ogun
The statement read, “The agreement that was entered into at inception in 2007 with our predecessor is what is still in operation and there was no need for any negotiation or re-negotiation of any contract when we came in and throughout our eight (8) years tenure.
“Our administration assumed office on 29 May 2011. Very shortly after we took office, two different sets of Chinese companies, Messrs China Africa Investment FXE and Zhongfu International Investment FXE laid claims to management rights over the Ogun Guangdong Free Trade Zone (OGFTZ).
“The business dispute and rivalry between the Chinese concerns soon became fierce, grounded seamless business activities and threatened public peace and safety within the Zone and neighbouring communities.
Claims, counterclaims, and deception
“There were claims and counterclaims as to who between the two was the lawful representative of the original joint venturer, Guangdong Province, China and consequentially who had the right to manage the Zone.
“Zhongfu International Investment FXE, pretending to be a concerned and genuine tenant and Zone stakeholder, volunteered very damaging and destructive information about the official representatives of Guangdong Province, the Joint Venturer and lawful Zone Managers, China Africa Investment FXE and subsequently requested to be appointed as Interim Zone Managers.
“Based on the information at the disposal of the government at the time, Zhongfu International Investment FXE was on 15/03/2012 appointed as Interim Zone Manager pending further evaluation. The whole idea was to ensure that someone was in charge and thereby prevent unwholesome and untoward development in the Zone pending the completion of our fact-finding exercise.
“It was later discovered that the information and claims volunteered by Zhongfu International Investment FXE against China Africa Investment FXE were tissues of lies.
Chinese government intervens, clears air on rightful owner
“Unknown to Ogun government at the time, Zhongfu International Investment FXE merely sought to de-market China Africa Investment FXE and to surreptitiously covert the State-owned assets of Guangdong Province in China together with the Zone ownership and management rights of their business rival.
“It was further discovered – much later – through the intervention of the Chinese Government via Diplomatic Note 1601, dated March 11, 2016.
“The Government of the Peoples Republic of China, via its Diplomatic Note 1601 dated March 11, 2016, clarified to the Ogun State Government, that China Africa Investment FXE was the rightful investor. After due consultation with the relevant organs of government, we gave effect to the request of the Chinese government.
Zhongfu’s attempts to overturn Court decisions failed at all levels
“We do recall, that Zhongfu International Investment FXE approached Nigerian courts in different jurisdictions to ventilate its legal and business rights. They lost all their four cases in court.
“Not satisfied with the decisions of the various courts, Zhongfu International Investment FXE took its case, and wrote petitions at various times, to higher authorities in Abuja; the Presidency, Hon Minister of Trade & Investment; Attorney General & Minister of Justice, Inspector General of Police, EFCC and the National Assembly (both the House of Representatives and the Senate) among others.
“We successfully defended our actions at all levels before these organs of government, and they all agreed with our position. Shortly after, our administration left office in May, 2019.
Attempts to convert Nigeria’s assets must be stopped
“In conclusion, without prejudice to the ongoing efforts of the Ogun State Government and the Federal Government of Nigeria, and with all sense of responsibility, I wish to categorically state that the Agreement that was entered into at inception of the Zone in 2007 with our predecessor is what is still in operation and there was no need for any negotiation or re-negotiation of any contract when we came in and throughout our eight (8) years tenure.
“I am ready to work with the agencies of government in any capacity to ensure that Nigeria is not scammed by Zhongfu International Investment FXE, or any other entity.
“Like every Nigerian, we are concerned that a purely business dispute between two Chinese nationals and corporations has now degenerated into an unlawful attempt to appropriate Nigeria’s sovereign assets.
“This is unacceptable to all people of goodwill and must not be allowed to stand,” the statement read.
Court judgments were very clear, Gbenga Daniel explained
Former Ogun State Governor Gbenga Daniel, who held office from 2003 to 2011, has offered to contribute his assistance to Nigeria by providing relevant records that could help the Federal Government in resolving the issue diplomatically and in legal proceedings.
Daniel, in a statement on Saturday, August 17, titled, “Seized National Assets/Ogun/Guangdong FTZ: Our Story”, said, “We need to establish clearly that Otunba Gbenga Daniel or his administration is not in discussion on the matter before the courts and arbitration, neither were the terms or proprietary of the Agreement for the establishment of the FTZ, rather it is the termination of a Management Contract. The judgements in all the courts are very clear on this.
Daniel urged for diplomatic solution over media comments
“Rather than engaging in media comments, the most reasonable course of action that Senator Otunba Gbenga Daniel would rather engage in is helping Nigeria, through the President, Bola Tinubu, to find a diplomatic solution to the issue at hand with available records that could assist the Federal Government in pursuing its course at the arbitration and before the courts. He cannot do this on the pages of the newspapers and on other media which may also compromise the strength of Nigeria’s arguments in the courts. We need to also appreciate that this matter is before various courts in several countries and it is subjudice for anyone to speak on them.
“However, let us emphasize once again that the Ogun/Guangdong Free Trade Zone project still exists and several Nigerians are working there as we write, just as there are several companies still doing their legitimate businesses. It is from this perspective of development that the efforts of Otunba Gbenga Daniel should be well appreciated.
Legal battle with Chinese company led to seizure of presidential jets
It was disclosed on Thursday, August 15 that three Nigerian presidential jets, one of which is a recently purchased Airbus, have been seized by a French court due to an ongoing legal dispute between a Nigerian sub-national body and Zhongshan Fucheng.
The assets seized include a newly acquired Airbus A330, worth over $100 million. The aircraft in question—namely a Dassault Falcon 7X, a Boeing 737, and an Airbus A330—
LG financial autonomy: What governors are saying about Supreme Court ruling
Meanwhile, TheRadar earlier reported that Nigerian governors have voiced their opinions following the Supreme Court's ruling, with some dismissing the judgment and others accepting it graciously.
The Court ruled that the 774 local government councils in the country should handle their funds, adding that it is unconstitutional for state governors to withhold funds allocated to local government councils.