There is also established under the Act an Adhoc body to be known as the Public Enterprise Arbitration Panel (in this work referred to as “Panel”) which shall be responsible for effecting prompt settlement of any dispute arising between an enterprise and Council or Bureau[1].
The panel shall consist of five persons who shall be persons of proven integrity one of whom shall be the chairman[2]. S. 27 (4) of the Act provides that:

“The Council shall appoint the members of the panel on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit”
The Panel shall have the power to arbitrate:
a.      In any dispute raising questions as to the interpretation of any provisions of a performance Agreement, or
b.      In any dispute on the performance or non performance by any enterprise of its undertaking under a performance agreement[3]
The ruling of the Panel shall be binding on the parties and to appeal shall lie from a decision of the Panel to any Court of law or Tribunal[4].
Two questions agitate my mind on this arbitral Panel. The first is about its impartiality. I have made efforts in vain to find out whether there is any difference between an arbitral tribunal as in general and an arbitral panel specifically under the Act. S. 57 of the Arbitral and Conciliation Act even defines an arbitral tribunal as a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators.
I therefore take them to be the same, and assume the same rules guide them. Under S. 6 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,[5] parties to an arbitration tribunal appoint members of their arbitration tribunal on equal basis. But S. 28 (4) of the Act No. 28 of 1999 empowers the Council to appoint all the five members of the arbitral Panel to adjudicate on a matter wherein the Council itself is a disputant. It is impossible to see how the arbitrators appointed by the Council can hand down any decision (award) that is impartial or in favor of the Council. There is a serious need for review on this point.
The next problem with the provisions on the arbitration panel lies in S. 28 (3) of the Act which provides that:
Ruling of the panel shall be binding on the parties and no appeal shall lie from a decision of the panel to any Court of law or Tribunal”
This provision reminds me of S. 6 (6) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which gives judicial powers to the Courts. Of  S. 251 of the same Constitution which gives the Federal High Courts unlimited jurisdiction to try matters relating to incorporated Company and of S. 4 (8) of the same constitution which precludes the legislature from making laws which oust the jurisdiction of the courts. Even within the confines of arbitration law, the case of Agu v Ikewibe[6] has stipulated that parties to an arbitrator cannot undertake to be bound by the arbitration award handed by their arbitrators.
The matter again needs the attention of the Legislatures or the Courts should be allowed to give it an appropriate interpretation[7]. So far, this is all the Act has done to ensure a smooth and fair achievement of the objective of the Privatization and Commercialization Program. The next chapter shall consider the contributions of the Act and its program to our legal system.

[1] S. 27(1) of Act
[2] S. 27(2) of Act
[3] S. 28(1) of Act
[4] S. 28(3) of Act
[5] S. 30 of the Act. No. 28 of 1999 say that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Applies to Public Enterprises disputed.
[6] (1991) 3 N.W.L.R. (opt.180) 385
[7] Ample statutory and Judicial Authority exist that a party to arbitration can apply to the Court to set aside the award; This is inconsistent with the Act’s provision that no Court can entertain further matters arising from the decision of the arbitral panel. See order 49 Rule 13 0f the High Court of Lagos Rules. SS. 29 & 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 19, 1990; The United Nigerian Insurance Co. Ltd v. Leandro Stocco (1973) 3 S C 11; Ita v Idiel (1923) 4 NLR, 100,Kmawam & Bros Ltd v. Edilit Ltd (1967) LLR. 23; Nipol v Bioku Investment & Property Co, Ltd (1992) 4 SCNJ 58; Home Development Ltd v SCANCILIA Contracting Co. Ltd (1994) 9 SCNJ 87
Share on Google Plus


The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin