LONG THREAD ALERT!
Please read slowing.
Slooowly.
Sometime in August 2015, Atlantic Energy, through its lawyer, T. Fagbohunlu SAN, took the NNPC to arbitration for alleged breach of contract.
On March 5, 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal in agreeing with Ajogwu’s arguments, delivered a landmark Arbitral Award of $1.7bn in the NPDC’s favour.
NPDC, at the same time, sought for an Order of Court to recognise and enforce the arbitral award.
In upholding Ajogwu’s submissions,
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Award Debtors’ application to set aside the Arbitral Award.
More from Law
We need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
In this thread, I noted the lawyer acting against the Tavistock, Paul Conrathe, is using very similar arguments (those under 18 cannot consent at all; or cannot lawfully consent without x conditions) as he has run/is running in a number of cases challenging abortion rights. https://t.co/gJk4c9bUED
— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) June 21, 2020
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
The Supremacy Of The Shari’a- A Thread 🧵
The Shari'a Law has been a subject of inequitable prejudice for a long time, which we already know is false & illogical.
However, as long as such claims are being made- we will have to falsify 'em.😏
Let's debunk all the myths.
Harvard Economists point out how eradication of poverty in secular states is one of the pressing issues academics face.
In fact, around a billion people live in extreme poverty conditions under the notion of secularism.
https://t.co/gVp2jRtjqU
https://t.co/oZELY0BFrd
Contrary to secularism-Islam was extremely triumphant in this regard.
The Shari'a states successfully eradicated poverty by creation of a welfare society & the institutionalization of obligatory charity.
https://t.co/5xpQkQ6ZQb
https://t.co/KH1sl1omB5
https://t.co/38ak5CUK1L
A logical outcome of 0% poverty is 0% crime rates, as criminologists point out.
This can be explained by the theory of Synnomie, which explains 0% crime rates & ideal social order under the Shari'a.
https://t.co/QwtLB6xEFW
https://t.co/HskBa5qy4P
https://t.co/mklS6BIOL0
The Shari'a Law has been a subject of inequitable prejudice for a long time, which we already know is false & illogical.
However, as long as such claims are being made- we will have to falsify 'em.😏
Let's debunk all the myths.
Harvard Economists point out how eradication of poverty in secular states is one of the pressing issues academics face.
In fact, around a billion people live in extreme poverty conditions under the notion of secularism.
https://t.co/gVp2jRtjqU
https://t.co/oZELY0BFrd
Contrary to secularism-Islam was extremely triumphant in this regard.
The Shari'a states successfully eradicated poverty by creation of a welfare society & the institutionalization of obligatory charity.
https://t.co/5xpQkQ6ZQb
https://t.co/KH1sl1omB5
https://t.co/38ak5CUK1L
A logical outcome of 0% poverty is 0% crime rates, as criminologists point out.
This can be explained by the theory of Synnomie, which explains 0% crime rates & ideal social order under the Shari'a.
https://t.co/QwtLB6xEFW
https://t.co/HskBa5qy4P
https://t.co/mklS6BIOL0
I was right. "Lawyer" starts out with name-calling and an insistence that trial is "unconstitutional". He's saying Trump's 1/6 speech was rather bland, and pretending that was the only thing the House managers talked about, and the managers were "slanderous."
Bilious bullshit.
"Lawyer" is arguing that since there were objections raised by Democrats to some of the vote counts in 2016, that means Trump didn't engage in sedition.
I'm not sure how that logic works.
Now they're running a Trump campaign commercial.
A bunch of whataboutism, contrasting patriotic music behind Trump's racist dogwhistles about "law and order" against Democrats making firey speeches with dark music.
He went to the moronic Gym Jordan argument that Trump couldn't have instigated insurrection if the violence was gonna happen anyway (without acknowledging Trump had been encouraging and building up to that violence for close to a year).
Bilious bullshit.
Trump's "lawyers" won't offer any sort of defense.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 12, 2021
They will distract, deflect, distort and dissemble.
They'll engage in whataboutism and name-calling.
They'll call the trial "unconstitutional," even though the Senate decided it wasn't.
They won't engage with the facts.
"Lawyer" is arguing that since there were objections raised by Democrats to some of the vote counts in 2016, that means Trump didn't engage in sedition.
I'm not sure how that logic works.
Now they're running a Trump campaign commercial.
A bunch of whataboutism, contrasting patriotic music behind Trump's racist dogwhistles about "law and order" against Democrats making firey speeches with dark music.
He went to the moronic Gym Jordan argument that Trump couldn't have instigated insurrection if the violence was gonna happen anyway (without acknowledging Trump had been encouraging and building up to that violence for close to a year).
