The interpretation or ruling on international immunity cases are often surrounded by controversies, sometimes leading to inconsistencies. The British municipal court rulings on international immunity cases are not exception, and in fact are embodiments of inconsistencies. The rulings are not just characterized by controversies, they swim in controversies. Perhaps, these inconsistencies have not been more visible than in cases involving granting of sovereign immunity to political subdivisions or federating units. This was the case in the municipal court decision to deny a serving Governor of a state in Nigeria immunity from jurisdiction. The contention of this paper is that these inconsistencies are, primarily or fundamentally, due to susceptibility of British municipal courts to British national interest, and thus, not primarily due to controversial nature of international law.