Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/investor-state-arbitration-laws-and-regulations/nigeria
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:47:41+00:00

Document:
Agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (1990).
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of France and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (1990).
Agreement on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1992).
Nigeria – Taiwan Province of China BIT (1994).
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (1998).
Agreement between the Government of Romania and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (1998).
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (2000).
Agreement on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2000).
Nigeria – Sweden BIT (2000).
Agreement between the Swiss Federal Government and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria concerning the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (2000).
Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Federal Republic of Nigeria concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (2000).
Agreement between the Government of the Italian Republic and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (2000).
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (2000).
Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (2001).
Agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Serbia and Government of Nigeria on mutual stimulation and protection of investments (2002).
Agreement on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2002).
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Finland and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (2005).
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria concerning the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (2011).
Treaty Establishing the Economic Community of West African States (1975).
Treaty Establishing the Economic Community of West African States – Protocol A/P1/5/79 on Free Movement of Persons, Right of Residence and Establishment (1979).
Agreement on Promotion, Protection and Guarantee of Investments amongst the Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (1981).
Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community/African Union (1991).
Revised Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States (1993).
Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of states of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part (2000).
Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria concerning the Development of Trade and Investment Relations (2000).
Supplementary Act A/SA.3/12/08 Adopting Community Rules on Investment and the Modalities for their Implementation with ECOWAS (2008).
Trade and Investment Framework Agreement between the Government of United States of America and the Economic Community of West African States (2014).
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria concerning the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (1996).
Bulgaria – Nigeria BIT (1998).
Agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (2000).
Agreement between the Government of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (2002).
Jamaica – Nigeria BIT (2002).
Uganda – Nigeria BIT (2003).
Ethiopia – Nigeria BIT (2004).
Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on Mutual Investment Protection (2009).
Kuwait – Nigeria BIT (2011).
Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investment between the Republic of Austria and the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013).
Canada – Nigeria Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (“FIPA”) (2013).
Reciprocal Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016).
Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Government of the Republic of Singapore (2016).
Agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Government of the United Arab Emirates on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (2016).
There are currently no published reasons for the delay in ratifying these BITs.
The Federal Republic of Nigeria does not currently base its BITs on a model BIT.
No, diplomatic notes exchanged with other states are not published in Nigeria.
There are no official commentaries published by the Government concerning the intended meaning of treaty or trade agreement clauses. Information relating to Nigerian foreign policy may, however, be found at www.foreignaffairs.gov.ng.
Yes, Nigeria is a party to the New York Convention.
Yes, Nigeria is a party to the Washington Convention.
No, Nigeria is not a party to the Mauritius Convention.
Yes, the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, CAP N117, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2010 (the “NIPC Act”).
Section 22 of the NIPC Act provides that the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission may negotiate specific incentive packages for the promotion of identified strategic investments.
Section 24 of the NIPC Act guarantees the unconditional transferability of invested funds, dividends, proceeds, and payments to service loans, through an authorised dealer, in freely convertible currency.
Section 25 of the NIPC Act guarantees that no enterprise will be nationalised, expropriated or forcefully acquired by any Government of Nigeria in the absence of fair and adequate compensation, and a right of access to the courts.
The Act further provides that where in respect of any dispute, there is a disagreement between the investor and the Federal Government as to the method of dispute settlement to be adopted, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Rules shall apply (Section 26 of the NIPC Act ).
There is no general statute/provision which requires the formal admission of a foreign investment in Nigeria. However, depending on the nature of the investment, formal admission may be required.
For example, where a foreign company is carrying on business in Nigeria, or where a non-Nigerian invests in an enterprise within Nigeria, Section 54 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap C20, Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2010 and Section 19 of the NIPC Act require that the Company be incorporated in Nigeria. Section 20 of the NIPC Act requires that such an enterprise be registered with the NIPC.
There is an argument as to whether the provisions of Section 20 of the NIPC Act amount to a formal admission requirement, and whether a company which is not registered with the NIPC (for example, where there is an indirect investment) would be entitled to the guarantees contained in the NIPC Act. This is a matter in dispute in the Interocean Arbitration (see question 4.1 below).
In JFS Inv. Ltd. v. Brawal Line Ltd. (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 495, in determining whether the provisions of Section 12 of the 1979 Constitution (which requires treaties to be domesticated before they can apply within Nigeria) will operate to affect the application of The Hague Rules 1924, a pre-1960 (i.e. pre-independence) Treaty/Convention, the Nigerian Supreme Court held that being a pre-1960 convention, the Hague Rules require no further legislative act such as ratification or adoption before its provisions can be implemented in Nigeria.
In Harka Air Services (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Keazor (2011) LPELR-1353 (SC), the Nigerian Supreme Court held that the Warsaw Convention (which has been domesticated in Nigeria), being an international treaty, supersedes conflicting Nigerian domestic legislation.
In Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (pt. 660) 228, in interpreting the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the Nigerian Supreme Court held that the courts would not interpret domestic legislation in such a way as to conflict with Nigeria’s international obligations (as contained in treaties and conventions to which it is signatory) but that this rule of interpretation did not confer any special status on those treaties and conventions.
Nigeria has, by virtue of the NIPC Act, indicated that it is supportive of investor-state arbitration as a relevant dispute resolution technique. See question 2.2 above. Nigeria has also passed the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (Enforcement of Awards) Act Cap 120 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 which guarantees the enforcement of ICSID awards.
In addition, the most recently negotiated BITs to which Nigeria is signatory expressly provide for investor-state arbitration. See for example, the Nigeria – Morocco BIT, although this BIT contains an elaborate pre-arbitration procedure including submitting the dispute first to a joint committee.
Corruption – parties to the treaties are encouraged to take measures to prevent and combat corruption, including by incorporating internationally recognised standards of Corporate Social Responsibility and implement measures to combat corruption. Investors are proscribed from being complicit in acts of corruption. See for example, Article 17 of the Nigeria – Morocco BIT (2016).
Transparency – parties are required to publish laws, regulations and administrative rulings of general application pertaining to or affecting any matter in relation to the agreement in question. See for example, Article 15 of the Finland – Nigeria BIT (2005).
Most-Favoured Nation – this status is accorded to most states in international treaties with Nigeria and are accorded equal trade advantages. See for example, Article 5 of the Canada – Nigeria BIT (2013).
Climate Change – in its most recently negotiated BITs, parties undertake to recognise, respect and observe each other’s environmental policies, and a common obligation to protect the environment. See for example, Article 13 of the Nigeria – Morocco BIT (2016).
Indirect Investment – the definition of investment includes both foreign direct and indirect investments. See for example, Article 1 of the Finland – Nigeria BIT (2005), and Article 1 of the Nigeria – Morocco BIT (2016).
The 1997 China – Nigeria BIT was terminated and replaced with the China – Nigeria BIT (2001) on 18 February 2010.
a. Interocean Oil Development Company and Interocean Oil Exploration Company v. Federal Republic of Nigeria.
a. Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria.
b. Guadalupe Gas Products Corporation v. Nigeria.
As noted above in question 3.2, Nigeria has passed the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (Enforcement of Awards) Act Cap I20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010 which guarantees the enforcement of ICSID awards.
Nigerian courts have yet to be called upon to enforce an ICSID award made against Nigeria.
Nigeria has not sought the annulment of any ICSID proceedings.
We are not aware of any satellite litigation arising in relation to the substantive claims or upon enforcement.
The cases that have been instituted against Nigeria at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes relate to investments in oil and gas mining, exploration and production.
Nigerian law does not currently provide for the funding of investor-state claims.
In general, under the Common Law which applies in Nigeria, third-party funding is considered champerty and is proscribed.
There is no recent case law on the funding of investor-state claims in Nigeria.
No, litigation/arbitration funding is not common in Nigeria.
A tribunal cannot review criminal investigations, and/or judgments. Criminal matters are generally not arbitrable under Nigerian law.
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act allows court intervention in the following matters: (i) appointment of arbitrators; (Section 7 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act); (ii) revocability of arbitration agreement (Section 2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ); (iii) staying court proceedings for matter to be submitted to arbitration (Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ); and (iv) enforcement and recognition of arbitral award (Section 31 and 51 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act).
Arbitration in Nigeria is governed generally by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1988 (Cap A18 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria) (the “ACA”) and other sub-national legislation, including the Lagos State Arbitration Law of 2009 (the “LSAL”). Although the ACA governs both domestic and international arbitration, Section 43 stipulates that Part III of the ACA which provides for the appointment of arbitrators, the making of awards, the termination of proceedings, and the recognition and enforcement of awards applies only and strictly to international arbitration.
Both the ACA and the LSAL are largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, with modifications.
The most commonly used arbitration legislation, the ACA, does not provide for statutory immunity for arbitrators. However, the Lagos State Arbitration Law grants arbitrators statutory immunity unless they act in bad faith (Section 18, Lagos State Arbitration Law).
Generally, in Nigeria, parties to arbitration have unlimited autonomy to select arbitrators. In the exercise of this freedom, parties may by an arbitration agreement determine the number of arbitrators to be appointed (Section 6 of the ACA). The parties may also specify in the agreement the procedure to be followed in appointing arbitrators.
The ACA provides for a default method of selecting arbitrators where no procedure is specified or where the method chosen by the parties fail.
where a party fails to act as required under the procedure, the counter party may request the court to take the necessary measure in the appointment of an arbitrator (Section 7 (3) of the ACA).
iii. the two arbitrators fail to agree on the third and presiding arbitrator within thirty (30) days of their appointments, the appointment shall be made by the Lagos Court of Arbitration on the application of any party to the Arbitration Agreement.
According to the provisions of the ACA, a party to the arbitration may request that the court intervene in the selection of arbitration where under the appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties: (a) a party fails to act as required under the procedure; (b) the parties or two arbitrators are unable to reach an agreement as required by the procedure; or (c) a third party, including an institution, fails to perform any duty imposed on it under the procedure (Section 7 (3) of the ACA).
The decision of the court in this instance is not subject to appeal.
the place of the arbitration as agreed or determined under Section 16(1) of this Act which place shall be deemed to be the place where the award was made.
Finally, a copy of the award, made and signed by the arbitrators in accordance with and signed by the arbitrators in accordance with the law and shall be delivered to each party (Section 26 of the ACA).
In order to enforce an award, the party seeking to enforce the award is required to submit an application to the court, in writing, attaching a duly authenticated original award and the original arbitration agreement, or a certified copy in either case (Section 31 and 51 of the ACA).
breach of the public policy of Nigeria (Section 48 and 51 of the ACA).
Generally, the Federal Government of Nigeria is not conferred with any immunity from enforcement of arbitral awards and court judgments in Nigerian courts. A party who obtains a favourable award or judgment against the government is at liberty to enforce the same against said government at the appropriate court.
There are, however, some limitations created by law with respect to the recovery against specific state assets such as the provisions of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Act (Cap N.123 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2010) which provides that: “In any action or suit against the Corporation no execution or attachment or process in the nature thereof shall be issued against the Corporation but any sums of money which may, by the judgment of the court, be awarded against the Corporation shall, subject to any directions given by the court where notice of appeal has been given by the Corporation, be paid from the general reserve fund of the Corporation” (Section 14 of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Act).
Also, a garnishee order nisi may not attach public funds until consent of the Attorney General of the Federation is first obtained with respect to the funds to be attached (Section 84, Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act, Cap S6 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2010).
The courts of Nigeria have not made any specific pronouncements with respect to the corporate veil in respect to sovereign assets.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.