Business
Oil giants, Shell, Eni, to face big loss as FG sets to withdraw Oil block
The Nigerian government is set to retrieve one of Africa’s richest oil blocs from oil giants, Shell and Eni, as reported by premium times.
Not only will the two oil giants lose OPL 245, should President Muhammadu Buhari approve the recommendations, they will also be fined billions of dollars for illegal activities, including paying money to fraudulent public officials and private citizens in order to secure the bloc.
The retrieval of the controversial oil bloc, estimated to contain about 9 billion barrels of crude, as well as placing heavy fines on the oil giants, is contained in a far-reaching recommendation by the office of the Director of Public Prosecution, DPP, Mohammed Diri.
The recommendation was at the instance of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, who is set to advise the federal government on how to proceed on a controversial deal that is being investigated by authorities in four different countries.
In arriving at its recommendations, the DPP committee, which included lawyers from his office, called for the cancellation of the ‘settlement agreement’ that ceded the oil bloc to Shell and Eni.
Summary of Malabu’s history
Summary of OPL 245 history. Source: Global Witness
The ‘Settlement Agreement’
Made on April 29, 2011, the settlement deal is made up of three different ‘Resolution agreement’ signed by the parties involved in the OPL 245 saga.
The first, titled “BLOCK 245 MALABU RESOLUTION AGREEMENT” was signed between representatives of the federal government and those of Malabu, which was represented during the discussions by a former petroleum minister, Dan Etete.
The second agreement, titled “BLOCK 245 RESOLUTION AGREEMENT” was between the Nigerian government and officials of Shell and Eni/AGIP; while the third agreement, titled “BLOCK 245 SNUD RESOLUTION AGREEMENT”, was signed by officials of the Nigerian government and Shell.
The immediate past attorney general of the federation, Mohammed Adoke, and immediate past petroleum minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke signed all the agreements on behalf of the federal government. Both are among officials being investigated by Nigeria’s foremost anti-graft agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, for their roles in the scam.
The agreements saw the transfer of OPL 245, first from the Malabu to the Nigerian government and then from the government to Shell and Eni. The agreements also effectively cancelled all previous law suits and judgements related to the case.
It was based on these agreements that Shell and Eni paid a total of $1.3 billion into Nigerian government accounts, which as stated in earlier reports by PREMIUM TIMES, largely ended up in accounts of phoney companies and shady characters.
Cancel the agreement
The committee empanelled by the Attorney General Malami recommended that the agreement be cancelled, describing it as “null and void”, and saying it “should not be given any legal effect by the FGN (Federal Government of Nigeria) as doing so would amount to the FGN condoning and perpetuating illegality.”
One of the reasons the panel consider the agreement illegal is that the ex-convict, Mr. Etete, had no legal authority to negotiate the agreement on behalf of Malabu as he was not a shareholder of the company nor had the permission of the shareholders to do so.
Also, the oil bloc was awarded to Malabu in furtherance of Nigeria’s policy to encourage local companies and part of the conditions for the award was that “foreign participation interest in the blocks (OPL 245 and 214) shall not exceed 40%, i.e. 60/40 indigenous to foreign;” a fact Shell was aware of but chose to ignore.
The committee also sought the cancellation of the agreement based on a resolution by the last House of Representatives, which called for the cancellation and demanded that Shell be“censured or reprimanded… for its lack of transparency and full disclosure in its bid to acquire OPL 245.”
Also, although Shell and Eni claimed they only struck an agreement with the federal government and that they did not know, before the agreement, that the money they paid was going to Malabu, evidence by investigators in Italy and the Nigerian anti-graft agency, EFCC, shows that the oil firms knew the payment was eventually going to Malabu accounts controlled by Mr. Etete, a man once convicted for money laundering in France.
Apart from calling for the cancellation of the agreement, the DPP panel also recommended the full recovery of the money paid by Shell and Eni, describing it as “proceed of crime.”
it was earlier reported how the Federal Government paid over $800 million of the money into accounts controlled by Mr. Etete and how Justice Edis of the Southwark Crown Court in England refused to release $85 million of the remaining sum to Mr. Etete in December.
Business
FLOUTING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, DEFYING COURT ORDERS, AND DISREGARDING ARBITRATION: THE FACTS BEHIND HADIZA BALA USMAN’S ABUSE OF OFFICE AS NPA MD
FLOUTING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, DEFYING COURT ORDERS, AND DISREGARDING ARBITRATION: THE FACTS BEHIND HADIZA BALA USMAN’S ABUSE OF OFFICE AS NPA MD
By BUA Group | May 31, 2025
We have noted recent public statements made by Ms. Hadiza Bala Usman, the former Managing Director of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), who was sacked from office. In her comments, she accused BUA Group and our Chairman, Abdul Samad Rabiu, of breaching a concession agreement and distorting facts. These claims were made in response to our Chairman’s interview and article, “Two Years of President Tinubu: A Business Perspective” (watch at https://bit.ly/pbatbua), which celebrated Nigeria’s reform trajectory and referenced prior instances of arbitrary disruptions to business operations, without naming anyone – a situation that has now been curtailed by President Tinubu’s no-nonsense approach to bringing sanity and stability to the business environment in Nigeria.
Ordinarily, we would not engage, but the distortions in her response necessitate this factual clarification, especially as they relate to her actions during her tenure as MD of the NPA.
THE CONTRACT AND WHAT SHE OMITTED
In 2006,
BUA entered into a valid long lease agreement with the NPA to rehabilitate and operate Terminal B at Rivers Port in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Long before Ms. Usman’s appointment, BUA had begun formal engagement with the NPA to address outstanding remedial works and infrastructural deficiencies. These discussions were nearing their conclusion when she assumed office.
Rather than build on that process, Ms. Usman ignored BUA’s requests and obligations under the agreement. In 2016, BUA wrote to the NPA under Article 8.4 of the lease, mandating concessionaires to report environmental and safety concerns and to seek approval for remedial works. Rather than act constructively, Ms. Usman used that letter as a pretext to issue a termination notice and summarily shut down the terminal, without providing any prior warning, consultation, or invoking the dispute resolution clause.
She forgot or failed to disclose in her response that the NPA, under her leadership, was itself in material breach of core obligations including, failing to hand over critical portions of the port, leaving derelict iron ore on the berths, failing to dredge or repair quay walls, and neglecting to provide mandatory security. These lapses were significant impediments to BUA’s operations and, as a result, led to disputes between the parties.
ILLEGALITY, CONTEMPT, AND DISREGARD FOR CONTRACTUAL MECHANISMS
After the unlawful termination, BUA approached the Federal High Court, which promptly granted an injunction restraining the NPA from proceeding with termination. The NPA itself then referred the dispute to arbitration, as stipulated in Section 17.3 of the agreement, which clearly states:
“Any dispute, controversy or claim… shall be exclusively and finally settled under the dispute resolution process prescribed in this Article.”
Despite this, Ms. Usman, against the advice of her agency, unilaterally decommissioned the berths, thereby violating both the agreement and a court injunction. To be clear, the concession agreement granted her no such power to decommission. If she believes otherwise, we invite her to publicly cite the specific clause that authorizes this action.
To further compound the illegality, BUA, after providing the guarantees and indemnities requested by the NPA, was permitted to resume operations briefly. Merely three weeks later, the terminal was again shut down, this time by Ms. Usman’s instruction. This left no doubt that her actions were motivated not by due process, but by personal animosity and abuse of office.
BUA subsequently filed contempt proceedings and was looking at estimated losses of over $10 million. These proceedings were only withdrawn out of respect for national interest and following the intervention of well-meaning Nigerians within and outside the government.
PRESIDENT BUHARI WAS NOT MISINFORMED—HE ACTED ON FACTS AND LAW
Ms. Usman’s claim that former President Muhammadu Buhari was “misinformed” when he reversed her actions is false, disrespectful, and disingenuous.
Following a meeting that our Chairman had the privilege of holding with President Buhari in 2018, he presented the matter to the President, who then directed the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation to conduct a thorough legal review and investigate the situation. The AGF invited all parties, including Ms. Usman, to several meetings. We never saw her at any of them.
Nevertheless, the AGF proceeded to undertake a comprehensive review of the contract, the litigation, the arbitration clause, and all correspondence and actions by BUA and NPA. The legal advice (attached herewith) found that the termination was unlawful, the decommissioning was without any legal basis, and that BUA’s rights should be reinstated.
It was on this basis that President Buhari ordered the reversal of her unlawful actions. His intervention preserved the sanctity of the contract, saved over 4,000 jobs, and BUA’s $500 million integrated investment cluster involving flour, pasta, and sugar processing facilities, which were all dependent on terminal access. For this, we remain deeply grateful to former President Buhari.
As our Chairman said in his interview, imagine if he weren’t privileged to have access. Nonetheless, this culture of impunity has been significantly curtailed under President Tinubu’s leadership, as many are aware that they could be dismissed or imprisoned if they abuse their positions.
POST-HADIZA: DUE PROCESS RESTORED, INVESTMENT RESUMED
Following Ms. Usman’s removal from office, the NPA, under new leadership, implemented the AGF’s position. In 2022, BUA was granted formal approval to resume reconstruction works. The contract was awarded to TREVI, and BUA has since invested over $65 million—entirely self-funded and with no recourse to public funds or subsidies. Work is ongoing, and completion is expected in the first quarter of 2026.
THE REAL DANGER: INVESTOR CONFIDENCE AND THE RULE OF LAW
We must state clearly that this matter goes beyond BUA. Had Ms. Usman’s actions been allowed to stand, it would have sent a disastrous signal that contracts in Nigeria are worthless, court orders are optional, and public institutions or individuals can act unilaterally without consequence. We must never return to that era.
Nigeria’s reform success today is rooted in respecting contracts, due process, and investor confidence—principles being restored under President Tinubu’s administration, under which BUA has committed over $1 billion in new investments across energy, food processing, manufacturing, infrastructure, and social interventions.
We wish to emphasise that Ms. Usman is entitled to her opinions, irrespective of how distorted they may be. However, she is not entitled to distort the facts or rewrite history. We do not seek a public spat and would like her to concentrate on fulfilling her duties in her new role under the strong leadership of President Tinubu.
We therefore simply restate the facts that Ms Hadiza Bala-Usman had no authority to decommission Terminal B unilaterally. She also acted in defiance of a court injunction and contractual procedure, and her actions caused significant economic loss of over USD10 million, reputational risk to BUA, and investor concern for Nigeria.
Our core message remains the same: public office should be viewed as a position of trust rather than a platform for personal biases. Those granted public power need to resist the temptation to let prejudice, ego, and vendetta influence their actions.
If Ms Hadiza Bala-Usman believes she acted lawfully, we challenge her to cite the specific clause or clauses that guided her unlawful actions. If not, let the facts remain where they belong — in the public record.
Signed,
BUA Group
May 31, 2025
Business
Faith, Discipline and Hard Work Brought Me This Far- Now I’m Building Platforms That Will Outlive Me- AMB. TOSIN MICHEAL OWONIFARI
Faith, Discipline and Hard Work Brought Me This Far- Now I’m Building Platforms That Will Outlive Me- AMB. TOSIN MICHEAL OWONIFARI
T21 Services (UK) T21 Consultancy Services (Nigeria) Tosin Owonifari Empowerment Foundation (TOEF)
-
society3 months agoRamadan Relief: Matawalle Distributes Over ₦1 Billion to Support 2.5 Million Zamfara Residents
-
celebrity radar - gossips6 months agoCourt To Hear ₦5 Billion Suit Against Sinach For Alleged Copyright Infringement
-
Business6 months agoDangote Refinery, wonder of modern technology ― Japan Ambassador, business community
-
society5 months agoNAPS Presidential Aspirant Lauds Tinubu’s ₦3.5 Trillion Education Budget, Advocates for Polytechnic Investment
You must be logged in to post a comment Login