When Nigeria confronted its gravest commercial threat in the P&ID saga, the late President Muhammadu Buhari refused to yield. Although the contract and arbitration began before his tenure, he ordered investigations, empowered a strong legal defence, exposed the underlying fraud, and insisted Nigeria would not pay an unjust $11 billion claim. Enam Obiosio here tells how that resolve turned a looming national crisis into a landmark victory, proving that determined leadership can defend both sovereignty and public resources when it matters most.
In January 2010, the Federal Republic of Nigeria signed a 20-year Gas Supply and Processing Agreement (GSPA) with P&ID, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands. Under the agreement, Nigeria was to supply specified volumes of ‘wet’ gas to processing facilities built and operated by P&ID in Calabar, Cross River State; P&ID would strip the wet gas into “lean” gas and deliver it back to Nigeria for power generation, while retaining the natural gas liquids for onward sale.
Critically, the plant was never built, and Nigeria never supplied the required wet gas. In 2012 P&ID initiated arbitration proceedings in London, claiming that Nigeria had breached the contract by failing to supply the gas (despite the fact that P&ID had not built the plant).
In 2017, the arbitration tribunal awarded P&ID US$ 6.6 billion in damages, plus interest at 7% annually. By the time the matter had grown in the courts, interest and other relief pushed the claimed amount to over US$ 11 billion. To put that in context, experts noted that the claim represented nearly a third of Nigeria’s foreign exchange reserves at the time.
This was the moment of reckoning for Nigeria – and President Buhari stepped in. Although the contract and initial arbitration process pre-dated his administration, Buhari’s administration took decisive action to defend the country’s interest.
In 2019, under his administration, Nigeria applied to the English Commercial Court to set aside the arbitration awards under sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, arguing that the awards had been obtained through fraud or other misconduct contrary to public policy. Then Nigeria’s legal team submitted evidence that P&ID had bribed Nigerian officials, submitted false evidence, and unlawfully obtained Nigeria’s privileged legal documents.
President Buhari’s public comments underscored how seriously his administration viewed the case. In October 2019, for example, he stated that the P&ID contract scandal revealed “the manner in which significant economic damage has been caused by the past activities of a few corrupt and un-patriotic Nigerians.”
In a statement in October 2023, Buhari declared: “Rarely in modern times can so few have tried to take so much from so many. If Nigeria had lost its arbitration dispute … it would have cost our people close to USD 15 billion.”
Buhari’s administration did more than issue statements. It instructed the Attorney-General of the Federation and other agencies to investigate the contract’s award, gather evidence, and mount a comprehensive legal defence. For example, in 2023, Buhari recalled that he had tasked his Chief of Staff and AGF to “find a way … to get us a fair hearing” in London.
On 23 October 2023, the English High Court of Justice delivered judgment in The Federal Republic of Nigeria v P&ID, finding that P&ID’s arbitral awards (originally in favour of P&ID) had been obtained by fraud and were contrary to public policy. Justice Robin Knowles wrote that the awards had been procured only after “practising the most severe abuses of the arbitral process”.
The Court found three central irregularities:
- P&ID’s legal team improperly obtained and retained privileged documents belonging to Nigeria, giving them insight into Nigeria’s case strategy. P&ID submitted evidence it knew to be false (notably, a key witness failed to disclose bribery of a Nigerian official).
- P&ID bribed a Nigerian official to keep her silent about earlier bribery at the time the contract was signed.
- As a result, the High Court set aside the awards rather than remit them to the arbitral tribunal.
In October 2025, the UK Supreme Court upheld a cost-order in favour of Nigeria (about £44 million) against P&ID and held that payment must be in pounds sterling rather than naira.
The victory protected Nigeria from a potential financial obligation of more than US$ 11 billion – a sum that, if payable, could have jeopardised federal budgets for health, education, infrastructure. Buhari himself noted the loss “would have required schools not to be built, nurses not to be trained and roads not repaired”.
By standing firm, the Buhari administration sent a clear signal: Nigeria would not passively accept unfair external claims without challenge. It also reinforced the message that contracts, especially with government involvement, require enforcing standards of due process, accountability and transparency. Buhari emphasised that “we need better contracts … and we need greater transparency: the reality is that … we will not allow our country to be treated like this.”
Although the GSPA and the initial arbitration were signed under earlier administrations (Goodluck Jonathan and associated actors), Buhari’s role was crucial in pivoting Nigeria’s posture – from potential large liability to vindicated litigant.
In his comments, Buhari pointed out that the P&ID affair was “already firmly set by the time I came into office in 2015” yet his administration took the case on. By doing so, he advanced his broader anti-corruption agenda and reinforced Nigeria’s standing in international arbitration and investment law. His 2019 remarks tied the P&ID contract to “the manner in which significant economic damage has been caused by the past activities of a few corrupt and un-patriotic Nigerians”.
Moreover, the judgment has been hailed as not just a win for Nigeria but a potential turning point for how arbitration involving state parties and host-state contracts are handled globally.
For Nigerians weary of seeing national assets and sovereignty compromised by shady deals, the outcome offered relief. For investors and governments, the case underscored the risks of entering agreements without proper due diligence and enforcement apparatus.
President Buhari leveraged this outcome to make the case for stronger institutional frameworks, preservation of national interests and the importance of governance in contract awards. His determination signalled to public officials and private actors alike that Nigeria was prepared to defend itself.
The P&ID saga stands as a landmark in Nigeria’s commercial-legal history. That Nigeria emerged intact – thanks in large part to decisions made during the Buhari presidency – ought to be recognised.
President Buhari’s insistence that Nigeria would not pay an inflated award secured on the back of a contract that never took off, his deployment of legal and investigative mechanisms, and his public articulation of the stakes united into an act of safeguarding national interest.
In an era where large-scale contract disputes with foreign investors can threaten national finances, Buhari’s handling of the P&ID matter exemplifies decisive leadership.
It is a legacy worth documenting: a government refusing to be victimised; a state asserting its rights; a people spared a bill of epic proportions. Through that lens, Buhari’s role in the P&ID victory is a chapter in Nigeria’s story of reclaiming its rightful place – not as a quarry for foreign claims, but as a protector of its own sovereignty and finances.
