Connect with us

Headline

End of the Road For Justice Onnoghen

Published

on

By: Ajibade Morakinyo

When the 80s boy band, Boys II Men sang the song, End Of The Road, they described a loving relationship that had gone sour but one of the parties was living in denial pleading and hoping that the relationship continues though it was teaching what was technically it’s last bus stop.

This scenario can be likened to the situation that has occurred in the life of Nigeria’s Chief Justice, Justice Walter Onnoghen.

His love affair with the judiciary which hit its zenith with him ascending the No.1 role had ended but he was holding on tight, hoping for a miracle or a turnaround of fortune but it is now obvious that it is over and he had reached the end of the road with a reported resignation.

THE GENESIS

It all started on Friday, January 11, 2019, when the presidency presented a 20 point text which revealed that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mr. Walter Nkanu Onnoghen, has committed chronic offences as alleged by a petition by a whistle blowing NGO.

The reaction was that of incredulity in some quarters while others doubted.the motive and asked if this was not a politically motivated witch hunt of Justice Onnoghen.

On Monday January 7, 2019, a petition was written by the Anti-Corruption and Research Based Data Initiative (ARDI); on Tuesday January 8, the petition was submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB); on Wednesday January 9, the petition was received by the office of the CCB Chairman; on Thursday January 10, charges against CJN Onnoghen were filed by the CCB; and on Friday January 11, the CJN was served at his official residence in Abuja.

According to the petition, Onnoghen is the owner of sundry accounts primarily funded through cash deposits made by himself up to as recently as 10th August 2016 which appear to have been run in a manner inconsistent with financial transparency and the code of conduct for public officials.

The group, in the petition, said Onnoghen made five different cash deposits of $10,000 each on March 8, 2011, into Standard Chartered Bank Account 1062650; two separate cash deposits of $5000 each followed by four cash deposits of $10,000 each on June 7, 2011; another set of five separate cash deposits of $10,000 each on June 27, 2011, and four more cash deposits of $10,000 each the following day.

Aside this, they said Onnoghen did not declare his assets immediately after taking office, contrary to section 15 (1) of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act; and that he did not comply with the constitutional requirement for public servants to declare their assets every four years during their career.

Another allegation against him was that his Code of Conduct Bureau Forms (Form CCB 1) for 2014 and 2016 were dated and filed on the same day and the acknowledgement slips were issued for both on December 14, 2016 — at which point, they said, he had become the CJN – Onnoghen assumed CJN office on March 6, 2017.

ARDI alleged that prior to 2016, Onnoghen appeared to have suppressed or otherwise concealed the existence of these multiple domiciliary accounts owned by him, as well as the substantial cash balances in them and that these domiciliary accounts were not declared in one of the two CCB Forms filed by Justice Onnoghen on the same day, 14th December 2016.

The cash balances in them were as follows: The Standard Chartered Bank dollar account 1062650 has $391,401.28 as at January 31, 2011; The Standard Chartered Bank Euro account 5001062686 has 49,971.71 Euro as at January 31, 2011; and The Standard Chartered Bank pound sterling account 5001062679 has balance GBP23,409.66 as at February 28, 2011.

THE EFCC ANGLE

As if this body punch was not bad enough, the Chief Justice got a blow yo the face from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

In the commission’s petition which no doubt cast more aspersions on Onnoghen’s intergrity, it disclosed that he refused to declare his assets upon his appointment as a judicial officer in 1989.

The EFCC also made various discoveries including hidden accounts and undeclared houses and businesses.

As a result of the weighty allegations, he was dragged before the Justice Danladi Umar-led Code Of Conduct Tribunal.

In one of the sitings, the State Prosecutor, Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN) asked that Onnoghen steps down or be suspended while the trial was going on.

The CCT had adjourned sitting but it was started that it had granted the prayer of that he should step aside.

This was challenged at a high court by Onnoghen’ s lawyers and before you could say Jack Robinson, President Muhammadu Buhari relying on the CCT recommendation suspended Onnoghen and swore in Justice Tanko Muhammed as Acting CJN.

The battle for his survival now began at the CCT

THE CCT DRAMA

At the CCT, it was discovered that the CCB had not conducted any investigation rather it was the EFCC that investigated Onnoghen.

The Commission had been contacted to investigate the petition and said Onnoghen had no evidence of ever declaring his assets until 2016 and upon his appointment as a judicial Officer in 1989 as Justice of the High Court of Cross River State.

EFCC stated that further that the respondent has not ever declared his asset until 2016 when he filled annexure E and F of exhibits R 6 and R7.

In exhibit R7, the Respondent admitted that he failed to comply with the Constitutional provisions requiring him to declare asset on the ground that he forgot due to pressure of work.

“My lords, even in the conventional court where rules of evidence is applicable every admitted facts need no further prove. See Agbakoba v. SSS (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt.351) p. 475 and the case of Gov. of Akwa-Ibom State v. John Amah (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.767) 730 at 778,” the commission revealed.

Also, he was accused of depositing the sum of $1,716,000 in a United State Dollars account operated with the Standard Chartered Bank in 2009, marked as exhibit P4 C, between 2009 and 2016.

According to EFCC, Onnoghen’s earnings as a judicial officer could not satisfactorily account for the amount found in the account.

They also said the Respondent (Onnoghen) failed to declare all the accounts and funds in exhibit P4-P4D when he declared his 2014 asset in November 2016. And that he only declared his Salary account with the Union Bank exhibit P3 and failed to declare P4-P4D, which are the accounts that warehoused funds that are far above Onnoghen’s known and provable lawful income.

It stated that by the provisions of Rule 1.2 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, it is clear that because members of the public expect a high standard of conduct from a judge, Onnoghen is under the obligation to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities both in his professional and private life.

Insisting that any conduct of the Respondent that give rise to the appearance of impropriety is a judicial misconduct and same is punishable under the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.

The EFCC said that having studied the petition,

“It is our humble submission that the petitioner proved before this Honourable Panel that the Respondent was in possession of funds which are fairly not attributable to his known, provable and legitimate source of income.

“The evidence shows that my lord earned a monthly salary in the sum of N750,819.87 which is about N9,000,000.00 per annum,” the petition read.

As shown in exhibit P10A page 14 paragraph XXVI from the petition, the Respondent only earned the sum of N91,962,362.49 as salary between September 2005 and October 2016, and that the exhibit P3 is the salary account wherein his salaries are paid.

The commission further said, “the evidence before this Honourable Committee shows clearly that the Respondent opened United State Dollars account with the Standard Chartered Bank in 2009, exhibit P4 C, which was opened by Mr. Joe Agi SAN and the first cash depositor of United State of America Dollars into the said account with entry of the 29th day of June, 2009.

Responding to this, Onnoghen claimed he gave the learned SAN, Joe Agi the $30,000.00 to deposit to exhibit P4 C. Although he could not give any reasonable explanation as to source of this money, he admitted under cross-examination that the USD was not his salary and that he only received dollars as estacodes which is meant to for his official trips.

The commission also made it known that upon the opening of the USD account exhibit P4C, a lot of cash deposits in Dollars were made to this account between 2009 and 2016.

The amounts in the said account were deposited as follows: $74,200 (2009); $291,800 (2010); $340,000 (2011); $625,000 (2012); $298,000 (2013); $40,000 (2015) and $47,000 (2016). The total was $1,716,000.

The suspended CJN was quoted to have stated that: “The sources of these are from my savings from my days as foreign student and a successful private legal practitioner, as well as estacodes for annual for annual vacations, medical expenses, international conferences, my earnings as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Gambia (See Annexure “B” referenced as ZD 129/186/01/P.II/(148), among others; and the conversion of Naira to Dollars which sometimes ago was very favorable.

According to him, returns from his off-shore investments in the foreign currencies which are clearly documented by the bank with an overdraft of $500,000 approved for me in the USD Dollars account in November, 2018.

He disclosed that up till now, the proceeds from the investments are paid into the account as and at when due, and that his investments with Standard Chartered Bank also include Federal Government Bonds as can be seen from the records of dividends.

The commission however said Onnoghen’s explanation was “laughable” and that when he was a foreign student in Ghana he accumulated such amount of money but was not stated to the Panel.

It was said by the commission that the respondent who purportedly cannot afford to pay N7,000,000.00 to Joe Agi SAN in 2009 wanted the Panel to believe that he accumulated dollars to the tune of $1,716,000.00 in his house.

In addition, it was said that he never declared having $1,716,000.00 in his asset declaration form as cash in hand and was therefore inexplicable that he wanted the panel to believe that he accumulated the said sum in his house and only deposited them in the bank between 2009 and 2016 in cash.

Also Onnoghen attempted to suggest to the panel that the $1,716,000.00 cash deposit in exhibit P4C was earned by him upon his part-time appointment as Justice of the Supreme Court of Gambia, but was accepted because he was appointed on the 22nd day of November 2012.

On the face of his appointment letter, it is clear that Onnoghen was entitled to the Five Thousand pounds Sterling (5,000 GBP) and Twenty Thousand Dalasis which is payable per session to be determined by the Chief Justice of Gambia in line with the Rules of the Supreme Court of Gambia.

However, he failed to show the panel that consequent upon his appointment in November 2012 and the assumption of that office in 2013 the number of sessions he sat as a member of the Supreme Court of Gambia.

Onnoghen also failed to state how much he earned from Gambia, how he was paid whether cash or through his account.

The petition concluded that if Onnoghen is to earn any fee from Gambia it will be GBP and not USD, and that he has failed to show with credible evidence how he legitimately earned the sum of $1,716,000.00 which is far above his lawful and provable income.

The Prosecution went on with his case declaring that it was going to call six witnesses.

The prosecution presented three witnesses before closing its case against the suspended judge.

Witness 1

The first persecution witness, James Akpala, an investigative officer with the bureau, told the court that the CCB received the petition against Mr Onnoghen from a petitioner, Denis Aghanya, on January 9.

Mr Akpala, whose testimony was given on March 18, said he was asked to investigate the content of the petition from Mr Aghanya, a member of the All Progressives Congress, on January 10.

With Mr Akpala in the witness box, the lead prosecution lawyer, Aliu Umar, admitted six documents said to have been investigated by the first prosecution witness.

The documents included Mr Aghanya’s petition, which gave rise to the six count charge against Mr Onnoghen, and two of Mr Onnoghen’s asset declaration forms, which were both filed by Mr Onnoghen in December, 2016.

The other documents admitted were Mr Onnoghen’s Supreme Court identity card, his traveling passport and a Standard Chartered Bank document which all made up Mr Onnoghen’s account opening package.

Also admitted in evidence was Mr Onnoghen’s handwritten statement taken by a team of investigators at his office on January 11.

According to the witness, one of the declaration forms submitted by Mr Onnoghen had two bank accounts while the other had seven bank accounts.

He said the bank accounts included two Union Bank details and five others with Standard Chartered Bank.

Mr Akpala was asked during cross examination to read out the dates written on the charge sheet earlier submitted at the tribunal.

The information read out by Mr Akpala proved a point made by the defence that the charge sheet was prepared before the investigation team visited Mr Onnoghen at his office.

That submission was not objected by the prosecution.

Asked whether the charge sheet was filed within 24 hours of commencement of investigation, Mr Akpala responded in the affirmative.

Mr Akpala declined comments when asked to speak on the reason the bank statements shown to Mr Onnoghen by the CCB was addressed to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC).

Witness 2

During his testimony, the second witness, Awwal Yakassai, also a staff of the bureau, testified that the asset declaration forms submitted by Mr Onnoghen were yet to be verified by the Code of Conduct Bureau.

Mr Yakassai was presented before the tribunal on March 21.

He reiterated a point made by Mr Akpala that the forms were both submitted the same day by Mr Onnoghen, and also confirmed that the forms were the basis upon which the charges against the suspended Chief Justice were filed.

Mr Yakassai was the CCB officer who collected the forms when they were filed by Mr Onnoghen in December 2016.

During cross examination, Mr Yakassai was shown the portion of the forms expected to have been signed as a measure of verification by the CCT. The portion shown to Mr Yakassai were confirmed blank by the witness.

Mr Yakassai also admitted, when confronted with a submission by the defence, that the content of the petition written against Mr Onnoghen was a ‘practical duplication of the details entered by Mr Onnoghen in his asset declaration forms.’

Witness 3

In her testimony, the third prosecution witness, Ifeoma Okagbue, a staff of the Standard Chartered bank who was also presented on Thursday told the tribunal that Mr Onnoghen did not have as much as $1million or £1 million in all the bank accounts, a denial of a major plank upon which the charges against him were built.

Ms Akagbue, who told the tribunal that she started to manage Mr Onnoghen’s account in 2015, added that all five accounts mentioned in the charges had the Bank Verification Numbers.

The witness also told the tribunal that the various accounts were domiciliary, not foreign. It was after this that it said it was not calling any other witnesses and decided to close the case.

Defense counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), led in evidence one Lawal Busari, who is Justice Onnoghen’s driver.

In his evidence, Busari told the court how he drove Onnoghen to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) Office on July 28, 2010, to obtain an assets’ declaration form, saying he paid N200 fee for Onnoghen’s form on November 3, 2010.

Busari, who told the court that he was a chief driver and mechanic with the Supreme Court, added that while he was still with Justice Onnoghen at the CCB, he (Onnoghen) asked him to also get his own assets declaration form.

He explained that he obtained his form as directed, adding: “When we got back to the office, I filled my own form and on November 3, 2010, my Lordship gave me N200 to pay into the treasury account for the form.

“I collected the receipt from the cashier and I gave the receipt back to my lord and on November 4, 2010, I did mine by paying N200 to the cashier.”

The testimony of the 60-year old witness aimed at countering the prosecution’s charge that Justice Onnoghen did not declare his assets between 2005 and 2016 in line with public office law.

But when Awomolo sought to tender the receipt as exhibit, the prosecution counsel, Aliyu Umar (SAN), objected to its admissibility.

He hinged his objection on the fact that the ‘Revenue number’ was not on the receipt, insisting that its authenticity was doubtful, and that Busari, not being the originator of the document, was not the right person to tender it in court.

The prosecution was, however, overruled and the receipt admitted as an exhibit, after which the tribunal adjourned for that day.

It was also to call Mrs Theresa Nwafor, a Director of the CCB now based in Benin, after asking that she be issued subpoena to appear, the Defence counsel, Chris Uche (SAN) informed on the next trial date of the tribunal that the defendant was done with his case.
Uche, while addressing the tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar, said:”My lords, today is for continuation of trial.

“But my lords, after a deep review of the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, the defence has come to conclusion and we have closed our case.

He stated “Pursuarnt to paragraph 14 of the Practice Direction of this honourable tribunal, we apply to file our final written addresses.”

Uche prayed the tribunal for 14 days to enable him file his client’s final written address.
Lead prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar (SAN), said the defence informed him before hand that it would close its case.

Umar urged the tribunal to allocate time to the parties as it wishes.
The tribunal’s chairman directed the defence to file and serve its address on or before April 8.

THE NJC ANGLE

Following an uproar by Nigerians on the case, especially that his trial did not follow due process and his suspension too was wrong because he could only have been suspended through the recommendation of the National Judicial Council ( NJC), the NJC stepped into the arena.

It stated that it has received two petitions, one was the one that formed the basis for the CCT trial against Justice Onnoghen and the other was by Olisa Agbakoba, SAN against Justice Tanko Muhammed for accepting to be sworn in as Acting CJN

The NJC summoned bith men to respond to the petitions after which it would take a decision.It set up a 5-man panel to handle the matter.

The council however decided that the allegations relating to assets declaration that were levelled against Hon. Mr. Justice W. S. N. Onnoghen, GCON were subjudice and therefore abstained from considering them.

Thereafter, the Council reached a decision on the petitions written by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and others, of which it has conveyed its decision to President Muhammadu Buhari.

Also, the council resolved that by the nature of the decision reached, it would be inappropriate for it to publicise it before conveying it to Mr. President.

THE END

Every film.or drama, there must be an end.And it seems the one involving Onnoghen is gradually cruising to an end with his reported resignation.

Though no official statement has so far been made by the Presidency, it was widely reported that Justice Onnoghen had tendered his resignation on Thursday and now we all await what will certainly be his final farewell from the exalted position of Chief Justice of Nigeria.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headline

There’s Ongoing Cold War Between Dangote and Tinubu Govt, Dele Momodu Reveals

Published

on

By

By Eric Elezuo

Veteran journalist and Publisher of Ovation Magazine, Aare Dele Momodu, has revealed that there is a cold war presently going on between richest man in Africa and the President Bola Tinubu-led Federal Government of Nigeria.

Momodu made the revelation while answer questions as a guest on News Central Television on Thursday.

He said: “I am not an expert in petroleum, but I am an expert in conspiracy theory, and I believe that there’s an ongoing cold war between Aliko Dangote and the Tinubu government; that one I’m very convinced about.

“It’s unfortunate that we get personal in Africa, especially in Nigeria, and they are getting personal with him. If he was in their good books, it wouldn’t matter whether what they are saying is true or not. And it’s very dangerous for a government to be vindictive; very dangerous. Because right now, I cannot how investors, whether foreign or local would want to invest in Nigeria.

“In fact, with what Aliko said, that has really damaged our investment opportunities; that people warned him against investing in Nigeria.”

Recall that in the past few weeks, the Federal Government agencies including the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) have been having a running battle with the Dangote Refinery with the FG claiming that the refinery is not licenced and its products are less than standard.

On his part, Dangote has reiterated, accusing some officials of the NNPCL of owning blending refineries in other countries just as he revealed a hitherto unknown fact that NNPCL owns only 7.2% of Dangote Refinery as against the popularly pronounced figure of 20%.

Continue Reading

Headline

Nationwide Protest May Lead to Anarchy, FG Warns

Published

on

By

The Federal Government has warned that there would be dire consequences for the stability of the country if a nationwide protest being planned by some Nigerians goes ahead from the beginning of next month.

Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Senator George Akume, met with ministers in his office behind closed doors to try to avert the protest.

But Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), yesterday, dismissed reports that it was withdrawing from the proposed national protest by some citizens over the harsh economic situation in the country, saying it cannot be part of an idea that did not emanate from it.

South-east Governors’ Forum also distanced itself from the planned nationwide protests, citing concerns about the fragile political environment and potential hijack by criminal elements.

At the same time, some stakeholders, including some northern groups, opposed the idea of protest in the wake of harsh economic conditions. Instead, they recommended an engagement with the federal government.

But the leadership of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which supported the protest, said it was a constitutional right of the people.

In a similar vein, Minority Caucus of the House of Representatives urged the federal government to dialogue with planned protesters with a view to addressing their concerns.

Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammad Idris, issued the warning against the protest yesterday, when he received members of the Charismatic Bishops Conference, led by Archbishop (Professor) Leonard Kawas, who were on a courtesy visit to him, at his office in Abuja.

Idris said government was cautious and bothered about the protest against economic hardship, having seen the debilitating consequences of similar protests in other parts of the world, particularly in Kenya and Bangladesh.

The minister voiced concern that arsonists and criminals might be waiting to hijack the planned protest and unleash violence on innocent Nigerians.

Idris stated, “Why everybody is very cautious and very weary of this national protest is because we have seen what has happened around the world.

“We know that it’s almost impossible to hold this protest and then have peace at the end of the day. We cannot do that because some people are waiting to take the laws into their own hands.”

He said while the government of President Bola Tinubu acknowledged the right of every Nigerian to engage in protests, it was equally committed to ensuring that the activities did not disrupt public order or violate the rights of others.

According to him, “You see, the government of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu believes in the freedom of everyone within the confirms of the law to do what he thinks is right for him.

“Therefore, the president is not an opponent of protest of any kind. But the president is an opponent of violence and anything that will hamper the wellbeing of Nigerians.

“He believes and he has always been saying that within the tenets of democracy, you have every right to do whatever you want to do provided that right does not infringe on another person’s right.”

Idris asserted that Tinubu was fully aware of the feelings of Nigerians across the country and he was actively working to implement effective policies aimed at alleviating the challenges faced by the citizenry and bringing relief to all Nigerians.

The minister said one of the policies being fine-tuned by government was to begin to pay stipends to all young university and polytechnics graduates after the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) scheme, pending their formal employment.

He stated, “But beyond that, there is also another new policy that the president has formulated, which will begin to be seen very soon, and that is that all young men and women who have finished universities and polytechnics and have certificates and have done their mandatory NYSC, and have not been able to get jobs, will have something from the government to keep them afloat until the time they get jobs.”

He described the introduction of the Compressed National Gas (CNG) policy by the president as a game changer in the country’s economy because of its ability to bring down the cost of transportation by about 60 per cent, thereby providing a viable alternative to petrol and diesel.

Idris said, henceforth, any government procurement of vehicles or machinery must have a component of CNG embedded in the contracts.

Earlier, President General of the Charismatic Bishops Conference, dissociated the conference from the planned national protest, saying they have been inundated with calls by some groups to join the protest.

Kawas said, “Recently we received some calls from some other religious organisations and other organisations asking us to join in preparation for a nationwide protest, which would start from 1st August 2024.

“We are here to let you know that we do not think the same. That we have rather decided to go all out and call for a truce. We have decided to sue for peace and humbly request that our brothers and sisters, who are aggrieved in one way or the other, that they should give us some time while we continue to communicate and negotiate with this government on areas that are pertinent to them.”

He appealed to aggrieved Nigerians in all parts of the country to give peace a chance and toe the path of dialogue and negotiation because no reasonable government will fold its hands and allow violence to break down the country.

Continue Reading

Headline

Our Products Are Not Sub-Substandard, Dangote Fights Back

Published

on

By

By Eric Elezuo

Steadfast and never-say-never entrepreneur, who doubles as Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, has refuted various claims against his petroleum refinery and general enterprise bordering on inferiority and monopolistic tendencies.

The President of Dangote Industries Limited emphatically rejected claims by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Agency (NMDPRA) that petroleum products from his refinery are substandard, in addition to the accusation that the company seeks to monopolize trade, especially in the oil sector.

Dangote rejected the allegations on Saturday when the leadership of the House of Representatives visited and toured the refinery located at the Lekki Free Trade Zone in Lagos.

Speaker Tajudeen Abbas and his deputy Benjamin Kalu led the delegation from the House which included Hon Ikenga Ugochinyere.

To back his position, Dangote and his team tested diesel bought from two filling stations and that from his refinery at the refinery’s laboratories.

The tested diesel from other stations was bought in the presence of the lawmakers, while that from the Dangote Refinery was taken from production also in the presence of the lawmakers.

Two tests were conducted; a test of the sulphur level and a flash test. While all crude-based products contain some level of sulphur, high sulphur levels cause damage to engines and vehicle components.

The flash point refers to the lowest temperature at which the application of the ignition source causes the vapours above the liquid to ignite with the minimum expected flash point at 66.

The results showed that the sulphur content in the diesel from other stations was above 2,631 and 1,829; much higher than the recommended level while the tests for the flash point showed results of 26 and 63 respectively for the diesel from other stations. Both results fell short of the recommended minimum of 66.

The results for the diesel from Dangote turned out to be 87.6 ppm for sulphur and 96 flashpoints.

For Dangote, the result does not only show the reality of products from his refinery, but it also shows that substandard petroleum products are being imported into the country and sold to unsuspecting Nigerians.

‘Probe quality of petrol, diiesel at filling stations’

He called on the House of Representatives to investigate the quality of diesel and petrol at filling stations.

To carry out the investigation, he urged the House to set up a committee to test products at various filling stations across the country.

Decrying the damage being done to vehicles and engines by substandard products, also called on the House to investigate the quality of laboratories being used to test imported products and compare that with the one at the Dangote Refinery.

‘Monopoly Claim Untrue’

Dangote also said the claim in some quarters that his group of companies enjoy monopoly is not true.

“If you look at all our operations at Dangote (Group), we add value; we take local raw materials and turn them into products, and we sell.

“We have never consciously or unconsciously stop anybody from doing the same business that we are doing.

“When we first came into cement production, it was only Lafarge that was operating here in Nigeria…Nobody ever called Lafarge a monopoly,” he said, adding that labelling his group of companies as monopolistic is disheartening.

“Monopoly is when you stop people, you block them through legal means. No, it is a level playing field whereby whatever Dangote was given in cement, for example, other people were given because some of them even got more than us.”

‘No Single Incentive From FG’
The billionaire business tycoon said his refinery did not enjoy any incentive from the Federal Government.

“In the refinery, we did not, and I repeat, we did not collect one single incentive from the Federal Government of Nigeria or even Lagos State. Yes, the Lagos State gave us a good deal but we paid $100m for the land. It wasn’t a free land; we paid for it,” he said.

“Majority of the population are with us. So, we are not discouraged, we will continue what we are doing.”

Addressing the speaker, he said, “The most important thing, your excellency, is to note that the imported one they are encouraging, is the spec in test, but in certain cases when you check (independently), different results will show.”

This, he said, is “because those people who have the lab have been told what to write.”

He said the best way to determine the quality of products being imported and sold to Nigerians is by going to the filling stations, buying and testing them.

Speaker Abbas said going by the presentation and the contradictory claims, there was a need for an investigation.

“I don’t know how we have this contradiction of two players representing the public and private sector,” he said.

“I think it is something we need to investigate further to find out if there are ulterior motives.”

It will be recalled that during the week, a Federal Government of Nigeria petroleum regulatory agency, the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, (NMDPRA), dismissed petroleum products from the Dangote Refinery as inferior, making a case for superiority of imported ones.

The revelation was made by the Chief Executive Officer of NMDPRA, Mr. Farouk Ahmed, while responding to questions from a section of the press, a video of which was trending online, adding that the refinery is only 45% completed, and yet to be licenced for operation by the Nigerian government.

In the short video, which lasted a little over a minute, Mr. Ahmed debunked theories attached to the functionality of the Dangote Refinery, saying it does not have the capacity to ‘feed’ the nation of its petroleum needs, as it stands. He however, refuted arguments that some elements within the oil and gas sector were trying to scuttle the Dangote Refinery.

A transcript of the NMDPRA’s boss short response is as follows:

“It about concerns of supply of petroleum products acros the nationwide, and the claim that we are trying to scuttle Dangote. That is not so. Dangote Refinery is still in the pre-commissioning stage. It has not been licenced yet. We haven’t licenced them yet. I think they are about 45 per cent completed, or completion rather.

“We cannot rely on one refinery to feed the nation, because Dangote is requesting that we suspend or stop imports, especially of AGO and DPK, and direct all marketers to his refinery. That is not good for the nation in terms of energy security, and it is not good for the market because of the monopoly.

“Dangote Refinery, as well as some modular refineries like Watersmith Refinery and Aradel Refinery, are producing between 650 and 1,200 PPM. Therefore, in terms of quality, their products are inferior to imported ones,” he stated.

It will be recalled that only last week, the President, Dangote Industries Limited, Aliko Dangote, while hosting senior journalists from across various media concerns, revealed that the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) owns only 7.2% of stakes in the refinery, and not 20 percent as widely circulated. He also revealed that the refinery is set to begin fuel supply in August 2024.

Many stakeholders and respondents have alleged that there’s no love lost between the government of the day and the Dangote Group, and that explains the hiccup situation surrounding the takeoff the $19 billion refinery.

Dangote has been fighting a battle of his life since the establishment of his refinery; from OICs, IPMAN and other concerns, posing the question, who’s afraid of Dangote?

Continue Reading

Trending