Petroleum Marketers Take Dangote to Court Over Alleged Monopoly
Three oil marketers have argued that the alleged planned monopoly of the energy sector by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals would bring the country more harm than good.
The three marketers, AYM Shafa Limited, A. A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, made the submission as third, fourth and seventh respondents in a suit filed by Dangote Petroleum.
Dangote, in the suit filed before a Federal High Court in Abuja, specifically sought the nullification of the import licences issued to the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and five other oil companies for the purpose of importing refined petroleum products.
In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, the plaintiff equally sought the sum of N100 billion in damages against Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) for allegedly continuing to issue import licences to NNPCL and the five oil companies for importing petroleum products.
But the three respondents, in their replies to the suit, claimed that the plaintiff did not produce adequate petroleum products for the daily consumption of Nigerians, adding that there is nothing before the court to prove the contrary.
In their counter affidavit in opposition to the suit, the three respondents claimed that they were well qualified and entitled to be issued import licence by the first defendant to import petroleum products in Nigeria within the meaning of Section 317(9) of the Petroleum Industry Act.
They further argued that vesting the plaintiff with the power of monopoly in Nigeria’s petroleum industry, as it sought vide the instant suit, will kill competitive pricing of petroleum products in the country, and further deteriorate Nigeria’s critically ailing economy “and unleash untold hardship on Nigerians, all of which constitute a recipe for disaster in the polity “.
They observed that if “Nigeria puts all her energy eggs in one basket by stopping importation of petroleum products and allowing the plaintiff to be the sole producer and supplier of petroleum products in Nigeria, with liberty to determine the prices at which it supplies the products, the prices of petroleum products in Nigeria will continue to rise and energy security will elude Nigeria”.
In addition, the three respondents stated that in the event of any breakdown in or obstruction to the production chain of the plaintiff, which stops it from producing, Nigeria will be thrown into energy crisis, as Nigeria did not have the reserves that would last it for at least 30 days, and so would need to order, pay for freight and import refined products into tanks in Nigeria.
They further submitted, “That amidst the glaring absence of any credible and demonstrable proof that the Plaintiff refines and supplies adequate petroleum products for the daily use/consumption of Nigerians, giving the plaintiff judicial imprimatur to be the sole supplier of refined petroleum products to Nigerians, thereby encouraging monopoly in a major aspect of Nigeria’s oil industry, is a recipe for disaster in Nigeria’s energy sector.”
The respondents told the court that granting the reliefs sought by Dangote refinery, which solely aimed at making the plaintiff a monopolist in Nigeria’s petroleum sector, was a design to leave Nigeria and Nigerians at the mercy of the plaintiff with respect to availability and cost of purchasing petroleum products in the country.
Besides, they argued that the import licences lawfully and validly issued to them did not in any way whatsoever cripple the plaintiff’s business or its refinery.
The import licences issued to the respondents, they claimed, were in line with the provisions of Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018, and other relevant laws.
The three oil marketers, therefore, asked the court to dismiss the suit filed by Dangote refinery.
When the matter came up on October 21, Mr. George Ibrahim, SAN, who appeared for Dangote Refinery, had informed the court that the respondents had reached out to them for reconciliation.
Ibrahim said, “My lord, there is a development in this matter, which the lead counsel, James Onoja, SAN, has asked me to bring to the court’s attention.
“At the time we were trying to serve the originating summons on the defendants, they started discussing.”
Ibrahim, therefore, sought an adjournment to allow parties to explore an out-of-court settlement of the issue.
He suggested that the court should adjourn for either a possible report of settlement or a report of service.
Responding, Justice Inyang Ekwo subsequently adjourned the matter until January 20, 2025 for report of settlement or service.
However, the respondents on November 5, filed their reply to the suit.
