The Federal High Court, Abuja, has fixed March 18, 2025, for its ruling on the preliminary objection filed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) in the N100 billion lawsuit initiated by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE. The legal dispute revolves around the issuance of import licenses for refined petroleum products, despite claims that local supply is sufficient.
At the resumed hearing, Justice Inyang Ekwo listened to oral submissions from legal representatives of Dangote Refinery, NNPCL, and other parties before setting the date for the ruling.
Background: The Legal Battle Over Petroleum Import Licenses
The lawsuit, filed under suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, seeks to void import licenses granted by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) to several companies, including:
•NNPCL
•Matrix Petroleum Services Limited
•A.A. Rano Limited
•AYM Shafa Limited
•Other unnamed marketers
Dangote Refinery argues that:
1.The importation of petroleum products, such as Automotive Gas Oil (AGO) and Jet-A1 fuel, is unnecessary since local production exceeds demand.
2.NMDPRA is violating the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) by issuing import licenses without evidence of a supply shortfall.
3.The continued issuance of licenses has caused financial losses, leading to its demand for N100 billion in damages.
NNPCL and Marketers’ Legal Defense
NNPCL, represented by Ademola Abimbola, SAN, has challenged the suit on multiple grounds:
1.Procedural Error:
•The lawsuit was filed against the “Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation”, a non-existent entity, instead of the legally recognized “Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL)”.
•On this basis, NNPCL argues that the court should strike out its name from the case.
2.Lack of Standing:
•According to NNPCL’s counsel, only NMDPRA and NNPCL have the legal authority to determine if there is a supply shortfall requiring imports—not Dangote Refinery.
•The Backwards Integration Policy, embedded in the PIA, allows petroleum imports to continue until the government enforces a restriction.
3.Regulatory Policy vs. Law:
•Abimbola contends that Dangote Refinery cannot override NMDPRA’s regulatory discretion by demanding a halt to imports.
•He further argued that without NMDPRA implementing the Backwards Integration Policy, there is no legal basis to challenge the issuance of import licenses.
Dangote Refinery’s Response
Lead counsel George Ibrahim, SAN, rejected NNPCL’s arguments and urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection. He countered that:
1.The PIA supersedes any regulatory policy—NMDPRA must comply with the Act and cannot issue import licenses without proving a local supply shortfall.
2.NNPCL is not NMDPRA’s legal representative—therefore, it has no legal standing to argue that Dangote Refinery failed to demonstrate the implementation of the Backward Integration Policy.
3.NNPCL is acting as a “meddlesome interloper”—it is not the regulator but is attempting to justify its continued petroleum imports at the expense of local refining.
“The NNPCL is merely a busybody and a meddlesome interloper, and its arguments on this issue should be disregarded,” Ibrahim submitted.
He further requested the court to allow Dangote Refinery to amend its filings, correcting a clerical error, but NNPCL opposed the amendment, insisting that its preliminary objection must be addressed first.
What Happened in Court?
At the hearing on January 30, 2025, NNPCL’s counsel pushed for:
•The outright dismissal of the suit.
•Alternatively, the removal of NNPCL’s name from the case.
On the other hand, Dangote Refinery’s counsel urged the court to:
•Reject NNPCL’s preliminary objection and allow the amendment of Dangote Refinery’s court filings.
After listening to both sides, Justice Ekwo adjourned the case to March 18, 2025, for ruling on the preliminary objection.
The Bigger Picture: Dangote Refinery vs. NNPCL & Marketers
This lawsuit is just one part of a larger dispute between Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, and NNPCL, marketers, and regulators over control of Nigeria’s petroleum supply chain.
•Dangote had previously expressed willingness to sell his multibillion-dollar refinery to NNPCL, amid increasing regulatory and financial pressures.
•He had accused petroleum importers of flooding the market with substandard products, undercutting locally refined fuel.
•The federal government recently allowed marketers to purchase fuel directly from Dangote Refinery, bypassing NNPCL as the middleman.
What Happens Next?
The Federal High Court’s March 18 ruling will determine whether:
1.Dangote Refinery’s lawsuit proceeds to a full trial.
2.NNPCL’s name is struck out, weakening the case.
3.The entire lawsuit is dismissed, allowing NNPCL and marketers to continue importing petroleum products freely.
With billions at stake and Nigeria’s refining industry in a crucial phase, this legal battle could reshape the future of petroleum supply in the country.
