On debt and jets
Last week, a French court authorised the seizure of three Nigerian presidential jets. Two of the jets, part of Nigeria’s presidential air…
Last week, a French court authorised the seizure of three Nigerian presidential jets. Two of the jets, part of Nigeria’s presidential air fleet, were recently put up for sale, while the third, an Airbus 330, was newly purchased. The seizure stems from a $74.5 million compensation awarded to Zhongshan, a Chinese company, by an independent tribunal after the Ogun State government revoked its export processing zone management contract in 2016. The court order blocks the jets’ movement, sale or purchase until the compensation is paid. Bailiffs have served papers for each aircraft. The new plane was quickly released, and President Tinubu used it to travel to France this week for a “working visit”.
The French court’s authorisation to seize the three jets highlights the significant risks associated with the casual disregard of contractual obligations by Nigerian governments, both at the federal and subnational levels. This situation serves as a stark reminder that government operations are part of a continuous process, where decisions made today can have far-reaching consequences in the global arena, where Nigeria is not a dominant player and is, therefore, subject to international laws and agreements. The root of this issue lies in the practice where incoming governments often unilaterally cancel contracts, dishonour agreements, and target individuals or entities associated with previous administrations without due process. Such actions undermine the rule of law and damage Nigeria’s credibility on the global stage. This case should serve as a wake-up call for the Nigerian government to adopt a more responsible and consistent approach to governance, where legal commitments are honoured and due process is respected. In addition, the federal government needs to implement stricter fiscal responsibility measures before standing as a guarantor for subnational entities to prevent such occurrences. Finally, when legal cases arise, the government must pursue them with greater diligence than it has typically shown. It should address issues proactively before judgements are rendered rather than resorting to damage control. Too often, and this was the case here, legal challenges are not adequately addressed until after adverse judgements have been issued, leaving the government scrambling to mitigate the damage. Proactive legal management, thorough review of contracts and timely defence in international disputes are essential to protect Nigeria’s assets and reputation. In conclusion, this incident shows the urgent need for more responsible governance and a more strategic approach to legal and fiscal management. If it opts to learn from this experience, the Nigerian government will take steps to safeguard its interests and avoid similar pitfalls in the future.