…TLN London International Desk
A full-blown international showdown is erupting over what is being described as one of the most scandalous miscarriages of commercial justice in Nigeria’s recent history. After seven years of what it calls “institutional sabotage,” Owigs and Obigs Nigeria Limited has launched a global legal offensive against Zenith Bank Plc and the Supreme Court of Nigeria, accusing both of colluding to subvert a $64 million irrevocable contract guaranteed by international trade law.
The company, in collaboration with a UK-based legal consortium, Tiffany Portfolio Chambers, has submitted a damning petition to the British Parliament. According to an acknowledgment letter sighted by Truth Live News in London, the petition was formally received at the UK Parliament in Westminster on Tuesday, 6th May 2025, and is scheduled to be read on the floor of Parliament within 14 days of submission.
Simultaneously, formal complaints have been filed with the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague and the International Court of Arbitration in France, citing judicial corruption, economic sabotage, and gross violation of commercial treaty obligations.
Speaking to Truth Live News in an exclusive interview on Wednesday from London, the Managing Director of Owigs and Obigs, Mr. Emeka Okorie revealed that the move became necessary after years of deliberate delays, judicial manipulations, and systemic failure to address what the company insists is “a straightforward commercial breach hidden behind institutional corruption.”
“They’ve been buying time for eight years, changing judges, twisting facts, because they could afford to buy the system,” he said. “Now, we’re taking it beyond them, to systems they cannot control.”
At the core of the dispute lies Appeal No: SC/CV/709/2020, where the Supreme Court controversially or inexplicably ruled in favor of Zenith Bank(Seller’sbank), which had served as the confirming bank in an irrevocable Letter of Credit (Contract No. JYOONL-001/KTTA140415) worth $64 million, with total indebtedness of $42.96 million and NGN3 Billion claimsinformofdamages arisingfromsuddendisappearanceoffundsbelonging to the Company anddefault financial obligations subject to the Agreement between parties. Owigs and Obigs argue that Zenith Bank violated its obligations, and that the apex court’s judgment effectively erased the bank’s role, reconstructed the contract, and exonerated it from liability through a web of judicial reengineering.
Especially owing to the fact that the transaction was an international one governed by binding international trade laws(UCP), the stakes are significantly higher. Confirmed letters of credit are governed by globally accepted standards, such as the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600), which obligate confirming banks to honor payment once conditions are met. Violations of such standards not only erode the rights of exporters but also compromise global trust in cross-border financial instruments.
In its newly released international petition, the company outlined four key grievances that now form the crux of its global case.
First of all, the Supreme Court is accused of judicial fabrication of the contract structure. The court allegedly rewrote the original agreement by removing Zenith Bank as the confirming party, despite clear documentary evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, there was misidentification of banking roles. The court described Zenith Bank as the issuing bank instead of its actual role as the confirming bank, a misrepresentation with significant commercial implications.
Thirdly, the judgment introduced fictitious parties and terms by creating a version of the contract involving non-existent entities, thereby altering the legal foundation of the transaction to the bank’s advantage.
Lastly, and perhaps most alarmingly, the judgment is said to have created judicially backed financial immunity. According to the petition, the ruling established a dangerous precedent allowing banks to breach international trade contracts without facing legal consequences, undermining Nigeria’s standing in the global financial ecosystem.
These revelations have sparked concern among civil society groups, investors, and legal experts. The Empowerment for Unemployed Youths Initiative and the Independent Public Service Accountability Watch, both co-signatories to the petition submitted to the National Judicial Council, argue that the ruling could severely damage Nigeria’s international reputation and discourage future investments.
A London-based professor of commercial law reviewing the petition told Truth Live News:
“This is a textbook example of systemic collapse. If the judiciary is used to launder contract breaches at this scale, no investor (foreign or local) can trust Nigeria’s financial system again.”
The case, now drawing attention in Westminster, is on course to soon be debated at the UK House of Commons under Britain’s corporate responsibility framework for multinational engagements. The petition submitted by Tiffany Portfolio also raises broader concerns about the complicity of financial institutions in emerging market fraud and the shared global responsibility to hold such institutions accountable.
Zenith Bank has remained silent on the matter. The Public Affairs Directorate of the Supreme Court has also declined to comment, despite multiple requests for a formal response.
“This is not just a Nigerian legal issue anymore,” said Mr. Okorie. “This is about the global business community deciding whether law can still protect commerce, or whether we are all at the mercy of those who can manipulate courts.”
As global legal institutions begin reviewing the evidence, Nigeria now faces a test far greater than any individual dispute. The outcome could reshape how the world views its legal system, and whether international finance can still trust the Nigerian promise.