7 minute read
Business
PEOPLES DAILY, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2022 BU$IN€SS
By Abubakar Yunus Abuja
Advertisement
The National Pension Commission (PenCom) says it has approved the increase of monthly pensions for retirees on “programmed withdrawal” under the contributory pension scheme (CPS).
The commission said this in a statement issued recently.
According to PenCom, this is the third edition of pension enhancement under the CPS.
PenCom also said the new increase will take effect in February, 2023.
However, it urged all eligible retirees to contact their pension fund administrators
PenCom to increase retirees’ monthly pension from February 2023
(PFAS) to complete all required documentation.
“PenCom is pleased to inform the general public that the third edition of pension enhancement under the contributory pension scheme (CPS) has been approved, ” the statement reads.
“The exercise is for existing retirees under programmed withdrawal who have accumulated significant growth in their retirement savings accounts (RSAs).
PecCom, therefore, assured all stakeholders of its commitment to the effective regulation, supervision, and administration of pension matters in Nigeria.
Meanwhile, the commission commenced the 2023 online verification and enrollment exercise for retirees/prospective retirees of the federal government treasury-funded ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs) on October 17, 2022.
It advised retirees/ prospective retirees who are unable to complete the online registration for any reason should approach the pension desk officer of their respective MDAs or visit their PFAs for assistance.
PenCom added that the verification and enrollment exercise will end on or before December 31, 2022.
Nigeria missed 2022 poverty reduction target – W’Bank
The World Bank Group has said that the estimated per capita income growth of 0.7 per cent for Nigeria and the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa in 2022 is insufficient to meet the challenging goals of poverty reduction and shared prosperity in the medium to long term.
In its new report titled “Africa’s Pulse: An analysis of issues shaping Africa’s economic future,” the Washington-based bank said that poverty reduction trends, which were already derailed by the pandemic, had slowed further.
According to the report, the pandemic has induced a lasting impact on long-term growth, affecting particularly the poorest people and increasing extreme poverty.
It added that the weak rebound of the Nigerian economy in the aftermath of the pandemic along with the setback from rising inflation was insufficient to undo pandemicinduced job and income losses.
The report partly read, “Rising inflation is weighing on economic activity in Sub-Sahara. The upward trend in inflation following the post-pandemic period was exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, soaring to record highs in many countries.
The World Bank also said rising inflation is weighing on economic activity in Nigeria, and that the upward trend in inflation following the post-pandemic period was exacerbated by the war in Ukraine.
The fiscal space to mount effective responses today is gone because of high levels of debt across Sub-Saharan African countries, rising borrowing costs, and depleted public savings.”
The report follows an earlier publication by the Bank titled “A Better Future for All Nigerians: Nigeria Poverty Assessment 2022,” in which it noted that deep structural reforms guided by evidence are urgently needed to lift millions of Nigerians out of poverty.
It added that sluggish growth, low human capital, labor market weaknesses, and exposure to shocks are holding Nigeria’s poverty reduction back.
According to the report, which brings together the latest evidence on the profile and drivers of poverty in Nigeria, as many as four in 10 Nigerians live below the national poverty line.
In its recent review of Nigeria’s poverty map, the National Bureau of Statistics pegged 62.9 per cent of Nigerians — nearly 133 million people — as multidimensionally poor. The figure represents a significant jump from the World Bank’s projection earlier this year, which placed 95m Nigerians under the poverty line.
Aiteo loses again to Shell in London court
By Abubakar Yunus Abuja
ALondon High Court has dismissed a suit by Aiteo Eastern E&P Company Limited challenging a partial award in which the court held that it had jurisdiction to determine Shell’s claims against Aiteo in the long-running case involving both companies.
The judgement, dated November 17, was handed down by Justice Foxton remotely by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email.
The judge dismissed two applications brought forward by Aiteo under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the 1996 Act), according to court documents.
Details of the case showed that Aiteo contested a partial award of the tribunal dated 15 March 2022 in which the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to determine the defendant’s (Shell’s) claims against Aiteo, and rejected Aiteo’s challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
It also contested a second partial award of the tribunal dated 22 July 2022 in which the tribunal made an order for the consolidation of the arbitration with another arbitration.
The long-running case concerns a debt allegedly owed by Aiteo to Shell and several other claimants. Details seen by Nigerian online independent newspaper,show that based on two agreements dated September 2, 2014, Aiteo borrowed some US$2 billion from the lenders in order to purchase an interest in Nigerian oil fields and facilities, including Shell’s OPL 29.
About 75 per cent of that funding came from AFC and the banks, regarded as “the onshore lenders”, via a Nigerian-law governed facility agreement known as “the Onshore Facility Agreement”. The rest came from Shell in the form of vendor financing via an Englishlaw governed agreement and was dubbed “the Offshore Facility Agreement”.
In October 2018, the parties began to correspond in relation to sums which the lenders said were due to them from the borrower. On August 19, 2019, the lenders alleged certain breaches of the agreements and asked the borrower to remedy them. On September 10, 2019, the borrower denied that any sums were due in a letter addressed to the lenders.
Eight days later, Aiteo commenced proceedings against the lenders (and four other parties) in the Nigerian Federal High Court, asking the court to declare that it was not liable as alleged in the demand letter.
Force majeure is an unforeseeable circumstances that prevent a party from fulfilling a contract. The borrower argued that since the lenders refused to restructure, there was no default.
Since then, both parties have been locked in legal battles involving arbitration proceedings and claims in the English court.
Earlier in April, the UK court noted that the commencement of proceedings in the High Court of Nigeria by the borrower seeking declarations of non-liability was a breach of the arbitration agreement in the Onshore Facility Agreement and the continuation of those proceedings was a breach of the arbitration agreement in the Offshore Facility Agreement.
It consequently ruled that Shell Plc, Africa Finance Corporation, and seven Nigerian banks established their right to block Aiteo Eastern E&P Company Limited from taking legal action when a suit initiated by them against the oil firm had not been resolved.
Commenting on the request for arbitration, the judge noted that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel will provide sufficient protection against any unfairness. In particular, the court noted that if Aiteo commences court proceedings, events in those proceedings may well generate a point in time when a failure to act will amount to a waiver of the clause 41.1 right.
Dangote adbanner 728x90_2
(1)
According to details of the court judgement, clause 41.1 provides that any party to the agreement (other than an Obligor) may elect to refer for final resolution of any dispute arising out of or in connection with the agreement by arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (the ‘ICC’) in force at that time (the ‘ICC Rules’).
The judge also noted that section 67 challenge to the second award was parasitic on the success of the section 67 challenge to the first award, and fails for that reason.
“In those circumstances, it is not necessary to address Mr Juratowitch KC’s (challenging) argument that even if the clause 41.1 right had never been exercised, such that no right or obligation to arbitrate ever came into existence, the tribunal appointed in the Offshore Arbitration nonetheless had jurisdiction to make the Second Award,” the judge noted.
