By Correspondent in Abuja.
The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, declined to grant an application seeking to restrain the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil), Mr. Heineken Lokpobiri, and other officials from allocating certain oil fields.
Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling on an ex-parte motion filed by Hi-Rev Oil Limited and Hi-Rev Exploration and Production Ltd and moved by their counsel, Mr. Ambrose Unaeze, ordered that the respondents be put on notice instead.
“The respondents are hereby ordered by this honourable court to show cause why the application should not be granted,” Justice Nwite ruled.
The judge, who sat as a vacation judge, adjourned the matter until January 5 for the respondents to show cause.
The second and third respondents in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2678/2025, are the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC).
The motion, dated and filed on December 11 by a team of lawyers led by Unaeze, sought an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants or anyone acting on their behalf from selling, assigning or allocating Yorla South (Petroleum Prospecting Licence, PPL 2A32 – OML 11) located in Rivers State.
The applicants also sought to restrain the defendants from allocating Akiapiri (PPL 2A48 – OML 25) and Diebu Creek East (OML 32), both in Bayelsa State, as well as Idiok (PPL 2A41 – OML 67) in Akwa Ibom State. They described the fields as direct replacements for the Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, which were earlier allocated to them but later withdrawn by the defendants, pending the hearing of their interlocutory application.
In advancing four grounds for the application, Unaeze argued that the companies were previously allocated the Utapate Oil Field and OPL 2002, but that the allocations were unreasonably withdrawn by the Federal Government. He said the parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement for the replacement of the Utapate Oil Field, which was adopted by the court as a consent judgment.
The lawyer further stated that the firms had taken substantial steps and offered consideration toward the grant of an oil prospecting licence and a licence to establish a petroleum refinery.
He contended that the companies’ legal rights were being threatened by moves to sell or allocate the Yorla South, Akiapiri, Diebu Creek East and Idiok oil fields to third parties through a public bid round, hence the need for an interim order.
In an affidavit supporting the motion, the companies’ Director, Chief Felix Ezeamama, averred that the firms won the bid for OPL 2002 in 2007, but the process was suspended following a lawsuit filed by Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC), the former operator of OML 13.
According to him, the plaintiffs later instituted Suit No. FHC/CS/1077/2007 against the defendants over lack of access to the oil field, which resulted in an out-of-court settlement in 2015. The terms of the settlement, he said, were adopted by the court as a consent judgment.
Ezeamama stated that the settlement confirmed the plaintiffs as the rightful winners of OPL 2002 and provided for the issuance of a 50,000 barrels-per-day modular refinery licence at Iko Community, Eastern Obolo Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State.
He said the then Department of Petroleum Resources (now NUPRC) subsequently issued the plaintiffs with an offer letter for OPL 2002 and a licence to establish a petroleum refinery, following which the companies made part payment of the signature bonus and engaged the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) on foreign exchange arrangements for the balance.
Ezeamama added that, based on the grant of the OPL and refinery licence, the plaintiffs submitted a detailed engineering design in compliance with statutory requirements for the construction of the 50,000 BPSD refinery at Iko Community. The design, he said, was reviewed and approved by the defendants, who advised the plaintiffs to proceed to the next phase of the project.
Ezeamama further stated that a subsequent high-level stakeholders’ meeting, chaired by the then AGF on behalf of the defendants, proposed a settlement offering the plaintiffs either two oil fields from OPL 2002 with complete data or three marginal fields of their choice from the government’s basket, under sole-risk terms and with a nominal signature bonus.
According to him, the plaintiffs selected the Obuzo, Uzoaku and Ofemini oil fields, which were approved for implementation by the defendants, but were later included in a marginal field bid round and sold to other operators, leaving no alternatives for the plaintiffs.
He said the matter remained unresolved for years, with the defendants repeatedly promising to provide the plaintiffs with alternative oil fields of equivalent value to those earlier withdrawn.
Ezeamama maintained that the plaintiffs are entitled to the allocation of Yorla South (PPL 2A32 – OML 11), Akiapiri (PPL 2A48 – OML 25), Diebu Creek East (OML 32) and Idiok (PPL 2A41 – OML 67) in line with the consent judgment and having fulfilled the conditions for the grant.
He warned that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss if the application was refused and the defendants proceeded to deal adversely with their interests in the disputed oil fields.
“The plaintiffs have suffered grave financial loss and emotional torture in the hands of the defendants, who have continued to dribble the plaintiffs at will,” he alleged.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.
