Connect with us

Business

First Bank Issues Press Statement On Contempt Order Against It, Says Media Publications Are Erroneous

Published

on

 


Press Statement:

We are constrained to issue the following statement to set the records straight and correct the erroneous reporting contained in some media publications.

RE: CONTEMPT ORDERS AGAINST FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED AND ITS OFFICIALS BY HONOURABLE JUSTICE I.N BUBA OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT, LAGOS, OF 6TH JUNE, 2018.

1. On 6th June, 2018, Honourable Justice I.N Buba of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, granted a motion in SUIT NO: FHC/L/NRJ/1/2018 committing the Chairman and Managing Director of FirstBank of Nigeria Ltd. for contempt Ex Facie Curiae with respect to an order given by the same Honourable Justice I.N Buba on 14th June, 2010, in Suit No: FHC/PH/CS/231/2001 – Chief Isaac Osaro Agbara & 9 Ors. v. Shell Petroleum Development Ltd, Shell International Petroleum Ltd and Shell International Exploration and Production BV. FirstBank of Nigeria Limited (FirstBank) was not a party to the suit and earlier order of Honourable Justice I.N Buba dated 14th June 2010 in respect of which His Lordship has now committed the Board Members of FirstBank for contempt. In view of the fact that FirstBank and its Board members were not parties to the earlier orders of Honourable Justice Buba, over which he subsequently assumed jurisdiction in respect of contempt outside the face of the court, and His Lordship’s earlier orders did not direct either FirstBank or its Board members to perform any obligation, neither did it impose any task on FirstBank, suffice to say that FirstBank did not and could not have disobeyed any
order made by Honourable Justice I.N Buba in Suit No: FHC/PH/CS/231/2001- Chief Isaac Osaro Agbara & 9 Ors. V. Shell Petroleum Development Ltd, Shell International Petroleum Ltd and Shell International Exploration and Production BV (Shell) made on 14th June 2010, since there was no order made against it.

2. It is pertinent to note that Shell that was the party and defendant to
Honourable Justice Buba’s earlier judgment and Orders has not been
held to be in contempt.

3. On 5th August 2010, Honourable Justice Buba, in Suit No: Suit No: FHC/PH/CS/231/2001- Chief Isaac Osaro Agbara & 9 Ors. V. Shell Petroleum Development Ltd, Shell International Petroleum Ltd and Shell International Exploration and Production BV (Shell), directed Shell to provide a Bank Guarantee in respect of the judgment sum which His Lordship had earlier made in the same suit on 14th June 2010, comprising both special and general damages (in the judgment sum) in the following sum as follows:

I Special Damages in the sum of N1,772,460,585.00 (One Billion,
Seven Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand, Four Hundred and Sixty
Million, Five Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand – Allowing for the
interest for delayed Payment for 5 years from 1996 at a modest Mean
Central Bank of Nigeria deregulated Rate for that volume at 25% per
annum amounting to a total of N5, 407, 777,246.00 (Five Billion,
Four Hundred and Seven Million, Seven Hundred and Seven Thousand,
Two Hundred and Forty Six Thousand).

ii. Award of Plaintiffs’ Claim of 25% of the said sum till the date of Judgement and thereafter 10% of the Judgment debt till payment

iii. Award of Plantiffs’ Claim against the Defendant in punitive terms of General Damages in the sum of N10, 000,000,000.00. (Ten Billion) TOTAL: N17,180,237,831.00 (Seventeen Billion, One Hundred and Eighty Million, Two Hundred and Thirty-Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Thirty-One Naira),

4. Shell, as FirstBank’s customer, approached it to issue a Bank Guarantee to satisfy Shell’s Compliance with the Order of Honourable Justice I.N. Buba of 5th August 2010, and FirstBank obliged Shell’s request by issuing the Guarantee. Specifically, the Guarantee concluded as follows:

“This Guarantee shall be governed by and subject to all the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and shall not be construed to fetter or limit the constitutional rights of parties, including their right of appeal”

5. Shell appealed the decision of Honourable Justice I.N Buba awarding various monetary claims against it to the Court of Appeal in Appeal No: CA/PH/396/2012 and on 23rd October 2013, the Court of Appeal struck out the said appeal on the ground that Shell did not pay sufficient filing fees. Shell immediately appealed the decision
of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court in SC. 693/2013.

6. Despite the pendency of Shell’s appeal to the Supreme Court, an Undefended List suit and garnishee proceedings were commenced against FirstBank in Suit No. BHC/208/2013 and FHC/PH/CS/432/2013. FirstBank responded to these suits by, maintaining that, in the light of Shell’s pending appeal to the Supreme Court in SC. 693/2013, the Guarantee had not yet crystallised, whilst Chief Isaac Agbara & Ors., insisted that payment was due on the guarantee. While Suit No. FHC/PH/CS/432/2013 was struck out, judgment was given on the Guarantee dated 12th December 2012, by the High Court of Rivers State on 17th January 2014 enforcing the Guarantee g i v e n i n re s p e c t o f t h e c u m u l a t i v e s u m o f N80,344,284,716.89 (Eighty Billion, Three Hundred and Forty-Four Million, Two Hundred and Eighty-Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixteen Naira, Eighty-Nine Kobo). Whilst judgment was given in the suit against FirstBank , sued thereat as ‘FirstBank PLC’, the Court of Appeal struck out the appeal filed by FirstBank for the reason that it appealed in the name of FirstBank PLC, the name by which it was sued and judgment given against it at the trial court but it did not have a right to appeal in the name of FirstBank PLC, since FirstBank PLC is not a juristic person. FirstBank has filed a subsequent appeal against that decision to the Supreme Court in SC. 511/2017.

7. Meanwhile, Shell’s appeal against the Court of Appeal decision which activated the Undefended List Suit inBHC/208/2013 and the Court of Appeal decision in CA/PH/29M/2014 succeeded and the Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision in CA/PH/396/2012. In the face of that decision, Chief Isaac Agbara & Ors., now
contend that the decisions given in their favour enforcing the guarantee in BHC/208/2013 and CA/PH/29M/2014 are now academic and of no use. Their current position thus validates the position of FirstBank that the Bank Guarantee cannot crystallise with the pendency of an appeal against a decision by Shell for the simple reason that if the appeal becomes successful, in the same way, Appeal No.: SC/693/2017 succeeded, the monetary judgment will no longer exist, and the basis of the Guarantee will have become eroded.

8. In allowing Shell’s appeal in SC. 693/2013, the Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeal to re-hear the appeal. The appeal was re-heard and on 6th June, 2017, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the ground of an alleged irregularity in the time Shell filed its brief of argument despite the fact that the same Court of Appeal had, on the day the appeal was heard, deemed the briefs of argument of Shell and the respondents as having been properly filed and served. In effect, Shell’s appeal against the judgment of Buba J., dated 14th June 2010, has neither been heard or dismissed on its merits. Shell subsequently filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in SC. 731/2017 and same has been scheduled to come up at the Supreme Court on 16th October 2018.

9. Despite the pendency of Shell’s appeal, Chief Isaac Agbara & Ors., on 8th June, 2017, commenced another Undefended List suit against FirstBank on the basis of the second decision of the Court of Appeal in the Rivers State High Court in Suit No: PHC/1583/2017, now alleging entitlement to the sum of N122,533,403,392.12 (One Hundred and Twenty-two Billion, Five Hundred and Thirty-three Million, Four Hundred and Three Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety-two Naira, Sixteen Kobo) on the Guarantee issued in the cumulative sum of N17,180,237,831.00 (Seventeen Billion, One Hundred and Eighty Million, Two Hundred and Thirty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Thirty One Naira).

10. During the pendency of the Undefended List action before Honourable Justice S.O. Iragunima, of the Rivers State High Court, ChiefIsaac Agbara & Ors., on 7th September, 2017, commenced a Winding Up Petition against FirstBank at the Federal High Court in Abuja to enforce the Guarantee against FirstBank , claiming entitlement to the sum of N122,533,403,392.12 (One Hundred and Twenty-two Billion, Five Hundred and Thirty-three Million, Four Hundred and Three Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety-two Naira, Sixteen Kobo) arising from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/PH/29M/2014 which is on appeal to the Supreme Court in SC. 511/2017. Parties joined issues in this petition and on 13th December 2017, the Honurable Justice Tsoho, in a well-informed decision, dismissed the petition and awarded costs of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) in favour of FirstBank and against Chief Isaac Agbara & Ors.

Chief Isaac Agbara & Ors did not appeal and have not appealed the decision of Tsoho J. dismissing their winding up petition on the enforcement of the same judgment of Buba J, and on which Buba J. has now convicted officials of FirstBank for contempt outside the face of the court.

11. Despite the foregoing, Chief Isaac Agbara & Ors. filed another winding up Petition against FirstBank in the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, before Honurable Justice Aikawa on 14th December 2017, repeating verbatim the pleadings and content of their dismissed winding up petition by Tsoho J., arising from the same judgments of Buba J. earlier mentioned. This Winding Up petition became the third in the series of cases filed and lined-up by the same judgment creditors against FirstBank, in respect of the enforcement of the Bank Guarantee earlier mentioned.

12. Not done yet, the same judgment creditors, Chief Isaac Agbara & ors., during the pendency of their winding up Petition before Aikawa J., in the Lagos Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, commenced garnishee proceedings before Alagoa J on 5th January 2018, of the Owerri Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, in respect of the same Guarantee, asking the court to enforce same in satisfaction of the judgment of Buba J. given on 14th June 2010. The said garnishee proceedings was later transferred to the Lagos Judicial Division and is also pending before Buba J.

While the said garnishee proceedings was pending, the same judgment creditors (Chief Isaac Agbara & Co.) commenced contempt proceedings against the Chairman and Managing Director of FirstBank of Nigeria Ltd in Suit No. FHC/L/NRJ/1/2018 on 19th March, 2018, before Buba J; by respectively filing Forms 48 and 49 dated 26th February, 2018 and 2nd March, 2018 respectively. FirstBank of Nigeria joined issues with the judgment creditors, both in the form of a preliminary objection and on the substantive subject of the contempt proceedings.

13. While the Bank respects the institution of the judiciary, however, it states with much respect, that:

a. No liability is due from it to Chief Isaac Agbara & ors. from the Bank Guarantee issued and dated 17th December 2012.

b. Further to (a) above, no law criminalises breach of an undertaking, how much more criminal liability for imprisonment upon such alleged breach.

The Bank further states that in respect of the same contempt proceedings in which the Honourable Justice Buba has convicted its officials, garnishee proceedings for the enforcement of the same judgment are pending before the same Buba J., which he
has adjourned to 19th June 2018.

In effect, before the same Buba J., the Bank is subjected to two proceedings, one penal and one civil, for the enforcement of the judgment of the same Buba J. It is worthy of note that no court has awarded any monetary liability against FirstBank and in favour of Chief Isaac Agbara & Ors. Contrariwise, the same Federal High Court which has now convicted the officials of FirstBank, had earlier dismissed all the claims of the same Chief Isaac Agbara & Ors. in the Winding Up Petition filed against FirstBank, on the same guarantee and in respect of the same sum and judgment of Buba J.

It is interesting to note that, the decision of Buba J in respect of contempt was given in the most recent of the various (5) suits filed by Chief Isaac Agbara & ors to enforce the Bank Guarantee. Some of the suits filed before same are still pending, including one before the same Buba J. This is also without prejudice to the appeals pending at the Supreme Court in respect of the same subject, and which appeals are borne out of the Constitutional right of appeal donated by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). We are compelled in total deference to the Supreme Court as the apex adjudicatory body in Nigeria to pose the following questions:

I If Shell’s appeal to the Supreme Court in SC. 731/2017 succeeds, will there still be any rights inuring in favour of Chief Isaac Agbara & Ors.

ii. Arising from (i.) above, could the court have rightly condemned and convicted officials of FirstBank during the pendency of the appeals to the Supreme Court

iii. Assuming Chief Isaac Agbara & Ors had obtained payment under the Bank Guarantee after the initial judgment of the Court of Appeal in CA/PH/396/2012, as they attempted to do through the use of the same type of court actions which they have now instituted, will irreversible damage and injustice not have occurred to both the Nigerian Judicial and financial system after the Supreme Court decision in SC. 731/2017.

14. FirstBank of Nigeria Ltd has been in business since 1894, (124 years ago); and since then, it has demonstrated to all and sundry that it is a leading corporate citizen in Nigeria, and a foremost provider of financial services. The Bank states humbly that it has been a partner to the Federal Republic of Nigeria
and all Nigerians in the task of development and nation building. Its positive footprints are seen all over the country. As a law abiding corporate citizen of Nigeria, the Bank respects the judiciary; as such, it has instructed its counsel to take all the constitutional steps with immediate effect to challenge the decision of Buba J. to the Court of Appeal.

15. Finally, in the face of constant, persistent and unprovoked use of judicial processes to intimidate, harass and threaten the Bank, it has decided to remain calm, steadfast and unflinching in its resolve to continue to provide first-class services to its teeming customers within and outside the country. FirstBank further asserts that it will always defend its interests within the ambit of the law and seek redress for any temporary injustice done to it. The Bank is not aware and has not been advised as to the provision of any law in Nigeria which allows the use of criminal contempt to enforce monetary judgements or obligations.

 

Business

GTCO Launches “Take on Squad” Hackathon 3.0, Opens Call for Applications 

Published

on

GTCO Launches “Take on Squad” Hackathon 3.0, Opens Call for Applications 

 

 

Guaranty Trust Holding Company Plc (“GTCO” or the “Group”) has announced the launch of “Take on Squad” Hackathon 3.0, reaffirming its commitment to fostering innovation, empowering talent, and supporting the development of technology-driven solutions that address real-world challenges across Africa.

Now in its third edition, the Hackathon brings together developers, designers and entrepreneurs across Nigeria in a collaborative environment to build practical solutions across key sectors including financial services, healthcare, commerce and digital inclusion. Under the theme “Smart Systems: The Intelligent Economy,” participants are challenged to design and build intelligent, data-driven solutions that transform how communities engage with money.

Applications are now open, and interested teams can find full guidelines and registration details on the official portal at https://squadco.com/hackathon.

Speaking on the initiative, Eduophon Japhet, Managing Director of HabariPay, stated: “Today’s dynamic, digitally driven world demands continuous innovation, which is shaping how economies grow, how businesses scale, and how societies evolve. Through “Take on Squad” Hackathon, we are deliberately investing in the ideas and talent that will define the future. Our objective is not simply to encourage innovation, but to enable its translation into scalable solutions that deliver real and measurable impact. This reflects GTCO’s role as a financial services platform that connects capital, capability, and creativity to drive sustainable progress.”

The social coding event remains a cornerstone of HabariPay’s mission to foster creativity and problem-solving among emerging tech talents. Competing teams will leverage Squad’s advanced APIs to create scalable digital tools that address everyday challenges faced by businesses and individuals.

Through initiatives such as this, GTCO continues to position itself at the intersection of finance, technology and enterprise, actively shaping the future of digital transformation in Africa.

 

About HabariPay

HabariPay Ltd is the fintech subsidiary of Guaranty Trust Holding Company Plc (GTCO), one of the largest financial services institutions in Africa with direct and indirect investments in a network of operating entities located in 10 countries across Africa and the United Kingdom.

Licensed by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), our goal is to support SMEs, micro merchants, large corporations and other fintechs (Tech Stars) with the tools they need to thrive in an evolving digital economy and expand beyond their current market reach. HabariPay’s solutions include Squad, a full-scale digital payments toolkit to make in-person and online payments simpler, HabariPay Storefront, an e-commerce website to facilitate online purchases, Value-Added Services to help merchants access cost-effective and flexible airtime and data bundles to run their businesses, as well as a switching infrastructure that enables tech-focused businesses to optimise cost and make transactions more efficient.

HabariPay’s contributions to Accelerating Digital Acceptance in Africa have not gone unnoticed–it received Mastercard’s Innovative Mobile Payment Solution Award at TIA 2022 for its innovative payment solution, SquadPOS.

About Squad

Squad is a complete digital payments solution that is reliable, secure, and affordable, making receiving in-person and online payments simpler and convenient.

Thousands of merchants currently leverage Squad’s payment solutions for their daily business operations. Squad’s current products and service offerings include SquadPOS, Squad Payment Links, Squad Virtual Accounts, USSD, and E-Commerce Storefront.

Find out more at www.squadco.com.

Continue Reading

Business

Electric 8-Seater Tula Moto Keke Enters Nigerian Market, Targets Higher Operator Earnings

Published

on

Electric 8-Seater Tula Moto Keke Enters Nigerian Market, Targets Higher Operator Earnings

 

 

LAGOS — A new electric-powered tricycle with an expanded passenger capacity has been introduced into Nigeria’s urban transport sector, offering operators a potentially more profitable and eco-friendly alternative to conventional petrol-driven “keke.”

 

The newly launched 8-seater electric tricycle, now available in Lagos with plans for nationwide distribution, features a dual-row seating arrangement capable of accommodating up to eight passengers per trip—significantly higher than the standard three-passenger configuration common across the country.

 

 

Promoters of the innovation say the increased capacity is designed to boost daily earnings for operators, particularly amid persistent fluctuations in fuel prices. By running entirely on electric power, the vehicle eliminates dependence on petrol, reducing operating costs and shielding drivers from fuel price volatility.

 

 

According to the distributors, the tricycle is equipped with a durable battery system capable of covering extended distances on a single charge, making it suitable for commercial operations across high-traffic routes, residential estates, campuses, and marketplaces.

 

“The concept is straightforward—enable drivers to earn more while spending less,” a company representative stated. “With higher passenger capacity and zero fuel requirements, operators can maximise each trip without the burden of daily fuel expenses.”

 

Beyond its cost-saving potential, the electric keke is also said to require less maintenance than traditional models, offering additional long-term savings. Its quieter and smoother operation is expected to enhance passenger comfort and overall commuting experience.
Industry analysts note that the introduction of electric mobility solutions reflects a growing shift toward cleaner and more sustainable transportation alternatives in Nigeria, particularly in densely populated urban centres such as Lagos.

 

 

The distributors added that the product is currently available under a limited promotional offer, with delivery options across the country.

 

For inquiries and purchase: 📞 08153432071
📞 08035889103
Office Address:
📍 Plot 9, Block 113, Beulah Plaza,
Lekki–Epe Expressway,
Lekki Phase 1, Lagos

 

As transportation costs continue to rise and environmental concerns gain prominence, innovations like the electric 8-seater keke may signal an emerging transition toward more efficient and sustainable mobility solutions nationwide.

 

Electric 8-Seater Tula Moto Keke Enters Nigerian Market, Targets Higher Operator Earnings

Continue Reading

Business

A Pipeline, a Licence, and a Storm Brewing: Corruption allegations Draw global oil giant, Shell, Into Nigeria’s Reform Test

Published

on

*A Pipeline, a Licence, and a Storm Brewing: Corruption allegations Draw global oil giant, Shell, Into Nigeria’s Reform Test*

By Deji Johnson and Mustapha Bello

 

t begins with a pipeline that should have been completed by June 2026. It widens into a regulatory dispute. And it now risks becoming a defining test of Nigeria’s gas reforms under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

At the center is a stalled 80 kilometre gas pipeline from Sagamu to Ibadan, a project backed by over 100 million dollars in investment and built on a protected Gas Distribution Licence issued under the Petroleum Industry Act 2021. The licence granted NGML–NIPCO exclusive rights to distribute gas within Ibadan for 25years based on Nigeria’s Petroleum Industry Act.

On paper, the law is clear. On the ground, the situation is anything but.

For more than three months, construction has been halted following a stop work order issued by the Oyo State Government led by former Shell Contractor and engineer, Governor Seyi Makinde. No detailed public justification has been provided that aligns with existing federal approvals already secured for the project.

What might have remained a quiet regulatory disagreement has now escalated into something far more politically charged. How?

In recent remarks, Nigeria’s Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, who is of the same political party as Governor Seyi Makinde, made a pointed allegation that has since rippled across political and industry circles. He suggested that the Governor of Oyo State and Shell were in what could be described as an “unholy alliance.”

It is a serious claim. One that, if substantiated, would raise profound questions about the intersection of corporate influence, state level action, and federal law.

Neither Shell nor the Oyo State Government has publicly responded in detail to the allegation.

But the silence is now part of the story.

*THE SHELL QUESTION*

For Shell, this moment carries particular weight.

The company has operated in Nigeria for decades, building one of its most significant global portfolios in the Niger Delta. But that history is not without controversy. From corruption claims to environmental damage claims and community disputes amongst others, Shell has faced years of litigation and, in several high profile cases, adverse rulings tied to its operations in the region.

Those cases, many adjudicated in foreign courts, have shaped a negative reputation that continues to follow the company.

Now, a new question emerges.

Is Shell once again operating at the edge of Nigeria’s regulatory framework seeking to exert undue influence in circumventing Nigeria’s petroleum laws, or firmly within it?

Industry sources including a widely reported meeting between their representatives, Oyo State Government representatives and the newly appointed midstream and downstream chief executive, indicate that engagements involving Shell and the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority could enable the company to enter a gas distribution zone already licensed to another operator in breach of the PIA.

If true, the implications are immediate and far reaching.

A licence meant to protect investors and investments in Nigeria’s gas space ceases to be exclusive against the dictates of the guiding laws. A framework begins to look flexible, and a reform risks appearing reversible.

To many, it seems more than just a commercial dispute and is not just about one company versus another.

Nigeria is in the middle of an energy transition where gas is expected to play a central role in powering industries, stabilising electricity supply, and reducing reliance on expensive diesel. President Bola Tinubu has emerged as a global champion of using gas as a transition fuel in Nigeria and Africa whilst rolling out elaborate but clearly defined plans to achieve it. Yet gas availability remains inconsistent, constraining power generation and limiting industrial output.

Projects like the Sagamu to Ibadan pipeline are designed to close that gap. To halt such a project is to delay not just infrastructure, but impact. To undermine its legal basis is to question the system that enabled it and to introduce competing claims within the same licensed zone is to risk regulatory confusion at a time when clarity is most needed.

This is where the issue moves from commercial to national because at stake is not only an investment, but the credibility of the reform architecture itself.

*OYO STATE AND THE FEDERAL QUESTION*

The role of the Oyo State Government adds another layer of complexity.

Energy regulation in Nigeria, particularly in the gas sector, is governed by federal law. Yet implementation often intersects with state authority, creating spaces where jurisdiction can blur.

The stop work order issued on the pipeline has become the clearest manifestation of that tension. Was it a regulatory necessity?
A precautionary measure? Or, as alleged by Minister Wike, part of a broader alignment with external interests? Without transparency, speculation fills the vacuum and the regulator must avoid finding itself mired in such allegations.

*QUESTIONS THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY*

For Shell, the questions are now direct and unavoidable:

Is Shell, a global energy giant, seeking to operate within the Ibadan gas distribution zone already licensed to NGML–NIPCO?
What assurances, if any, has it received from regulators or state actors?
How does it reconcile such actions with the exclusivity provisions of the PIA?

For the regulator, NMDPRA:

Can a Gas Distribution Licence be effectively shared, diluted, or overridden after issuance? According to Nigerian laws, the answer is No.
What precedent does this set for Nigeria’s gas infrastructure market?

For the Oyo State Government:

On what legal grounds does the stop work order stand, given federal approvals already in place?
And how does this action align with national energy priorities or the state’s gas needs?

Nigeria has spent the last two years telling a new story to the world. A story of reform, of discipline, of a country ready to compete for global capital. And it has worked so far with stability returning to Nigeria’s economy and over $20bn of energy investments looking to enter the country in the short to midterm.

But reforms are not tested in policy papers. They are tested in moments like this.

Moments where law meets influence, investment meets interference and promise meets pressure.

For Shell, long mired in issues surrounding ethical operations in Nigeria, this is more than a business decision. It is a reputational crossroads.

For Nigeria, it is something even larger. Whether the country’s laws will hold when they are most challenged or Whether its reforms will stand when they are most inconvenient or even whether Nigeria’s energy investments future will be shaped by the rules of law, adherence to regulatory protections and provisions or by unethical and corrupt relationships.

Until those questions are answered clearly, publicly, and decisively, the pipeline in Ibadan will remain more than steel in the ground.

It will remain a symbol of a country still deciding which path it truly intends to follow. Nigeria must act quickly and decisively because the world is watching.

Continue Reading

Cover Of The Week

Trending