₦airaland Forum

DeadCountry:
Terrorists are crying including their sponsors, the UK government. This is the same UK government that killed over 6 million Biafrans because of our oil and gas trying to tell Israel what to do against terrorists that are killing them. Do this terrorist sponsoring UK government know what is self defense?

These idiotic British people are not even relevant in Europe anymore. Isrel shopuld bomb them into oblivion if they mess up.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces arrest if he travels to the UK, after an international arrest warrant was issued for him, Downing Street has indicated.

A No 10 spokesman refused to comment on the specific case but said the government would fulfil its "legal obligations".

On Thursday the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, along with Israel's former defence minister Yoav Gallant, over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The court's member countries, including the UK, have signed a treaty that obliges them to act on arrest warrants.

Asked whether Netanyahu would be detained if he entered the UK, the prime minister's official spokesman refused to comment on "hypotheticals".

However, he added: "The government would fulfil its obligations under the act and indeed its legal obligations."

This refers to the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which states that if the court issues a warrant for arrest, a designated minister "shall transmit the request… to an appropriate judicial officer", who, if satisfied the warrant appears to have been issued by the ICC, "shall endorse the warrant for execution in the United Kingdom".

The PM's spokesman confirmed the government stands by the process outlined in the act and would "always comply with its legal obligations as set out by domestic law and indeed international law".

He was unable to confirm which secretary of state would be involved in the process and did not answer questions about whether the government was seeking legal advice from Attorney General Lord Hermer - the UK's top lawyer - in relation to the case.

Generally, arrest warrants and extradition requests from around the world must be sent to a special team in the Home Office for basic checks before they are acted on.

The UK’s legislation on the ICC says that the courts have the final say on whether an arrest and “delivery” of a suspect should go ahead.

Asked whether the PM was still willing to talk to Netanyahu, the PM's spokesman said it was "obviously important that we have a dialogue with Israel on all levels", describing the country as "a key partner across a range of areas".

Last month Lord Hermer told the BBC he would not allow political considerations to influence his conclusions if the ICC were to issue an arrest warrant.

"My advice [on an arrest warrant for Mr Netanyahu] would be legal advice, based on analysis of the law," he said.

"It's not for the attorney to dictate what a government chooses to do. The role of the attorney is to provide fearless legal advice as to what the law requires, what the contents of the law is, and where the law takes you. And that's what I'm going to do."

Following the arrest warrants being issued on Thursday, Downing Street said the UK government respected the ICC's independence and remained focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

The court also issued a warrant for Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, who Israel says was killed in July, over alleged war crimes in relation to the 7 October 2023 attacks against Israel.

Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel criticised the ICC for drawing a "moral equivalence" between Israel's actions in Gaza and the 7 October attacks.

She called on the government to "condemn and challenge" the court's decision, describing it as "concerning and provocative".

After winning power, the new Labour government scrapped its predecessor's plan to challenge the right of the ICC to issue arrest warrants, saying it was a matter for the judges to decide.

The impact of the warrants will depend on whether the court's 124 member states - which do not include Israel or its ally, the US - decide to enforce them or not.

US President Joe Biden has called the arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister "outrageous", saying there is "no equivalence" between Israel and Hamas.

However, officials from a number of European countries have made statements standing by the court and said they would implement its decision.

Both Israel and Hamas reject the allegations made by the ICC, with Netanyahu branding the warrant "antisemitic".

Netanyahu condemned the ICC’s decision as “antisemitic”. Hamas made no mention of the warrant for Deif but welcomed the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.

French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot has told the BBC that the ICC’s decision “is the formalisation of an accusation, it is by no means a judgement”.

He told the Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg show: “We also say that we’ve condemned, in [the] strongest possible terms, the fact that humanitarian help has not been able to reach civil populations in Gaza while the situation is catastrophic.

“But in no way do we draw any form of equivalence between the Hamas leaders that have been targeted by arrest warrants by the ICC and the government of Israel.”

Guestlander26:
We have completely lost our pride as a nation

British Virgin Islands court grants Chinese firm right to seize Nigerian $25m assets

A court in the British Virgin Islands has, again, granted Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd, a Chinese firm, the authority to seize another £20 million ($25 million) from Nigeria’s foreign denominated assets over an Ogun trade zone deal that fell through in the early 2000s under the administration of Ibikunle Amosun, the then governor of Ogun state.

In a swift reaction, the Presidency has assured that the federal government is studying the judgment and will respond appropriately.

Daniel Bwala, Special Adviser to the President on Policy Communication, told BusinessDay that the judgment cannot be enforced immediately, noting that Nigeria will vacate the judgement.

Reports had revealed that Paul Webster, a judge at the British Virgin Islands High Court, in his judgement of November 8, 2024, held that Nigeria was not immune to execution of an arbitral award and subsequent judgment debt in favour of the Chinese company, Zhongshan, as a result of the wording of the underlying bilateral investment treaty concluded between China and Nigeria.

The judge held that a term of the treaty which provided that “both contracting parties shall commit to the enforcement of the award” constituted “a written consent of the Nigerian state.”

The judge, therefore, held that based on Section 13(3) of the State Immunity Act 1978, the British Virgin Islands must allow Zhongshan to enforce the judgement debt against Nigeria from the UK.

The ruling marks the latest in a string of losses Nigeria has suffered in foreign jurisdictions over the past years.

The British court, relying on the initial judgements on the same issue by courts in France, Belgium, Canada, the United States, British Virgin Islands, among others, found Nigeria liable to settle the debt and dismissed the country’s sovereign immunity argument as unfounded and unenforceable against Zhongshan.

Zhongshan was said to have been represented in the case by Timothy Otty (King’s Counsel) and Lauren Peaty of Withers British Virgin Islands. But reacting to the judgement, Bwala told BusinessDay that the federal government will study the ruling and respond appropriately

“Based on what is before me, the preliminary response as is that this is not a judgement that will be enforced immediately. It is like a warning to the country to enter its defense and until such is done, the judgement cannot be enforced.

“No Judgement is considered substantive or said to carry ‘a natural Justice unless both parties are present in court.'”

Bwala stated that Nigeria still has the chance to appeal and vacate the judgement, noting that the federal government will study it and respond appropriately.

Recall that a London commercial court had, in August, this year, granted the same Chinese firm, a final charging orders over two residential properties owned by Nigerian government over the same issue.

The Chinese firm had approached the court seeking to enforce a $70 million arbitration award against the Nigerian government.
The ruling was delivered by Lisa Sullivan, a master at the court, after Nigeria’s previous attempts to challenge the jurisdiction of the orders.

The legal battle stems from a 2010 agreement in which Zhongshan, through its parent company Zhuhai Zhongfu Industrial Group Co. Ltd, secured rights to develop a free trade zone in Ogun State, Nigeria.

In 2011, Zhongshan established a Nigerian entity, Zhongfu International Investment (NIG) FZE, to manage the project under the authority of the Ogun State government.

The case followed a decision by the Ogun State government in July 2016 which terminated its appointment. BusinessDay had reported that the dispute led to Zhongfu initiating an investment treaty arbitration under the bilateral investment treaty between China and Nigeria (the China-Nigeria BIT).

The arbitration tribunal ruled in favour of Zhongshan, awarding the company approximately $70 million in compensation, citing Nigeria’s breach of its obligations under the BIT.

In January 2022, Zhongshan sought to enforce the arbitration award in the UK courts. Nigeria argued for state immunity, but this defense was rejected by High Court Judge Sara Cockerill, who ruled that Nigeria had abused the time frame for appealing the arbitral award.

In July 2023, the UK Court of Appeal upheld the $70 million arbitration award in favor of Zhongshan.