MATCH FIXING’ IN INVESTOR STATE ARBITRATION: PROCESS & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

John S Nyanje

Abstract

Match fixing has been defined in organised sports as the act of playing
or officiating a match with the intention of achieving a pre-determined
result, which is seen as violating the rules of the game and often the law.1
It
sometimes takes the form of a player deciding to commit certain errors during
the match in order to achieve a certain result. This is mostly influenced by
bribery and blackmail from bookmakers.2
It seems that investor-state dispute
settlement (ISDS) is now so lowly valued that it would be comparable to the
rot of match fixing in competitive sports. Process & Industrial Developments
Limited (P&ID) v Federal Republic of Nigeria3
is a classic example of how
the rot and corruption in ISDS is endemic especially in Global South states. It
is an example of how players in an ISDS case can collude to achieve a desired
outcome at the expense of truth and justice