Introduction
On August 14, 2024, Nigerians were confronted with the alarming news that a Chinese firm had seized three of the nation’s presidential jets under the orders of a French court, a move that has significant implications for the nation. Former Ogun State Governor Ibikunle Amosun, a key figure in this dispute, offered his account in response to the seizure. He alleged that the Chinese company, Zhongfu International Investment FXE (Zhongfu), misled the state government, leading to the contested management decision that has now culminated in Nigeria’s assets being targeted abroad.
Background: The Dispute and Claims of Mistake
Upon taking office in 2011, Governor Amosun inherited a conflict between two Chinese firms, China Africa Investment FXE (CIA FXE) and Zhongfu, laying claim to the Ogun State Free Trade Zone (OGFTZ) management rights. Amidst this dispute, Zhongfu International presented itself as a legitimate stakeholder. It provided what has now been alleged to be misleading information about the official representatives of CIA FXE, joint venture partners and lawful managers of the zone. This led the Ogun State Government to appoint Zhongfu as the interim manager on 15th March 2012, a decision Amosun later claimed was based on false information.
Unbeknownst to the Ogun State Government at the time, Zhongfu’s intention, as later revealed in a diplomatic note dated 11th March 2016 from the Chinese government, was to oust its rival and take control of the zone. Following this revelation, the Ogun State Government terminated Zhongfu’s appointment. Still, the damage had been done by then, leading to the treaty arbitration that has now resulted in a significant financial liability against the Federal Government of Nigeria.
Premised on the above, former Governor Amosun has invoked the concept of mistake and fraudulent misrepresentation in his defence of the ongoing fiasco. Mistakes and fraudulent misrepresentations have become complex legal principles under contract law. This article examines whether “mistake and fraudulent misrepresentation” are viable grounds under the applicable legal frameworks, specifically the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, to resist recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
