Olasupo Shasore, the lawyer who represented Nigeria at the first and second stages of the arbitration proceedings with the British Virgin Islands-based P&ID, has denied fraudulently working against Nigeria's interest, insisting that he is a truly patriotic Nigerian. 

In a statement released on Saturday, September 5 Olasupo Shashore, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) said although he is relieved that the corrupt and fraudulent foundation of the P&ID deal was affirmed in the recent ruling, he is disappointed that the ruling established a case against him based on "demonstrably false statements, unfounded innuendoes and spiteful personal attacks".


Shasore reiterated that he wholeheartedly represented Nigeria at the first and second stages of the arbitration despite receiving little or no cooperation from relevant government officials at the time, adding that he filed jurisdiction objection that potentially could and should indeed have terminated the case in favour of Nigeria. 

Recall that investigation carried out by Nigeria's anti-graft agency EFCC, revealed that Mr Shashore offered at least $200,000 bribe which he called gifts to key public officials working at Nigeria Petroleum Corporation NNPC and the Ministry of Petroleum.

"What persuades me of a prima facie case of dishonesty in Mr Shasore's conduct of the arbitration are his payments of US$100,000 each to Ms Adelore and Mr Oguine. Ms Adelore occupied Ms Taiga's position at the Ministry as the senior lawyer, and Mr Oguine was her counterpart at the NNPC. Their salaries as public servants, according to the Attorney General, Mr Malami, were some US$5000 per annum," the presiding judge Sir Ross Cranston, said on Friday, September 4.


Below is the full response of Mr Olusupo Shashore: 

In the last 24 hours, I have been urged to break my deliberate silence about the efforts of the Federal Government of Nigeria to find recourse against the arbitral award procured by P&ID based on a corrupt and fraudulent contract. My choice of silence has been the result of my own high sense of responsibility as well as my commitment to the professional duty, which I undertook in representing the Federal Government in this case. I am relieved that the corrupt and fraudulent foundation of this case is affirmed in the recent ruling, though I am disappointed that part of the case made for that result was a case against me based on demonstrably false statements, unfounded innuendoes and spiteful personal attacks on my professional conduct and reputation.

I was instructed in this matter and accepted the instructions on behalf of my firm and to the knowledge of my partners in late 2012 and I made every effort to defend and vindicate my client at every stage with very few tools and with minimal support from within the government itself.

I represented Nigeria up until the liability stage in the arbitration. I did not represent Nigeria in the damages stage of the arbitration. Which means I was not involved when the huge sum of damages was awarded against Nigeria. The complete records will show the series of steps that I took to defend Nigeria and the several results, which I secured in that effort at various stages. 

None of these is consistent with the unfounded allegations that I failed to present the best available defense. With very little or no cooperation from relevant government officials at the time, I filed a jurisdiction objection that potentially could and should indeed have terminated the case in favour of Nigeria because it was clear to us from the beginning that the contract was a scheme against Nigeria. When the then Nigerian officials failed to supply documents or any witness to defend their case, I fought liability by enlisting the support of the legal adviser of NNPC who gave evidence to the best of his knowledge when everyone else with knowledge, refused to do so. I instructed the UK firm of Stephenson Harwood a respected international arbitration team and a leading Barrister to attempt to set aside the award on liability in England. We overcame numerous hurdles and faced a hostile tribunal, which relied on the testimony of a principal witness who had died before the hearing and whose testimony should have been discounted. It is on record that I fought hard for the tribunal to dispense with that evidence. I am happy that the falsity of that testimony has now been recorded in the High Court in England.

Indeed this was the ground on which I took the matter to the Federal High Court in Nigeria, which was the proper seat of the arbitration and successfully obtained an order setting aside the liability award. There was no basis to proceed to the damages hearing since the liability had already been set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. Indeed, Nigeria continues to  rely on this order in the proceedings in the United States. In addition, I obtained an injunction restraining the parties and the tribunal from proceeding with the arbitration.

Much issue has been made about the legal fees paid. This was payment to two law firms and not exceptional or unusual in the context of such a dispute. In fact, in order to extract the best possible case for Nigeria, it was from these fees that expenses were paid to ensure attendance at hearings and meetings in the UK by witnesses for Nigeria.

Even though I reserve the right to respond to further falsehoods against me as they are published, I am however a truly patriotic Nigerian, and remain willing and committed to assisting Nigeria in the numerous stages still required to successfully defend this dispute. My commitment and professional integrity to always act in the best interest of Nigeria, who has been victimized by fraud and corruption remains unshaken.


Join WhatApp Group