BY LATEEF O. FAGBEMI
The attention of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice has been drawn to media reports attributed to the Atiku Abubakar Media Office, which contain misrepresentations concerning the recent resolution of disputes associated with the OPL 245 oil block.
In that publication, the former Vice-President sought to downplay what is, by all objective standards, a landmark achievement of the current administration in brokering the settlement of a protracted dispute spanning nearly three decades. It will be recalled that the block was originally awarded to Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd (Malabu) in April 1998, revoked in July 2001, and subsequently allocated to Shell Nigeria Ultra-Deep Limited (SNUD) in May 2002. These actions gave rise to extensive litigation and public hearings before the National Assembly.
The disputes arising from the revocation and reallocation were eventually addressed through the 2011 Resolution Agreement involving the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), Malabu, SNUD (now succeeded by Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Limited – SNEPCo), and Nigerian Agip Exploration (NAE)/Eni entities. Under that Agreement, Malabu relinquished all claims and interests in OPL 245 for valuable consideration, while the Federal Government reallocated the block to SNUD (SNEPCo) and NAE as joint license holders. The Agreement also required the Federal Government to convert OPL 245 into an Oil Mining Lease (OML).
Subsequently, the transactions and actions arising from the 2011 Agreement were subjected to rigorous judicial scrutiny in multiple criminal and civil proceedings across jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy. These proceedings did not establish any wrongdoing against Eni, SNEPCo, or the transaction as a whole.
Following the conclusion of these litigations, and in light of the Federal Government’s delay in converting OPL 245 into an OML, Eni entities and Nigerian Agip Exploration Limited initiated arbitration proceedings against the Federal Republic of Nigeria at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). They contended that the delay constituted a breach of Nigeria’s obligations under the Nigeria–Netherlands Bilateral Investment Treaty. As a result, Nigeria faced a potential liability exceeding US$2 billion in damages and associated costs.
It is noteworthy that although the ICSID arbitration, which commenced in 2020, received considerable public attention, none of the stakeholders now being referenced by the former Vice-President participated in those proceedings. The arbitration was not concerned with questions of ownership of Malabu or internal disputes within the company. Rather, it focused strictly on whether Nigeria had wrongfully delayed or refused the conversion of OPL 245 into an OML, and whether such actions breached its treaty obligations to foreign investors. At no point did the individuals now laying claim to interests in Malabu initiate proceedings in that forum, nor did they possess a legal basis to intervene in a dispute centered on sovereign obligations and licensing decisions.
It is also important to highlight that OPL 245, located in deep offshore waters approximately 150 kilometres from Nigeria’s coastline, has long been regarded as one of the country’s most commercially promising hydrocarbon assets. However, for decades, it remained largely undeveloped due to persistent legal and political disputes. The decisive action taken by the current administration is aimed at resolving these long-standing issues, avoiding significant financial exposure, and creating the conditions necessary for the asset to be fully developed and brought into production.
The significance of this development cannot be overstated. OPL 245 is projected to contribute approximately 150,000 barrels per day to Nigeria’s oil production capacity. The project is designed around a large-scale floating production system and includes substantial gas export components linked to Nigeria LNG. For decades, OPL 245 symbolized unrealized national potential. The present resolution, achieved under the leadership of President Bola Tinubu, transforms it into a viable and bankable development opportunity capable of delivering substantial economic and social benefits, including increased government revenue, enhanced energy security, and renewed investor confidence.
Furthermore, the public should be guided by the most recent and authoritative judicial pronouncement on the matter. In Nigerian Agip Exploration Limited v. Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd (2025) 15 NWLR (Pt 2009) 551, the Court of Appeal dismissed Malabu’s challenge to the allocation of OPL 245 to Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Limited, holding that the action was statute-barred and constituted an abuse of court process.
In light of the foregoing, it must be stated unequivocally that the ongoing opposition to this resolution is both revealing and deeply concerning. The persistence of these criticisms, despite clear legal, commercial, and national interest considerations, strongly suggests that they are driven not by patriotism or objective reasoning, but by undisclosed and self-serving interests.
Those advancing such narratives must be understood for what they represent—an attempt to frustrate a lawful and strategic resolution that stands to unlock immense value for the Nigerian people. Their posture is not only misleading but ultimately inimical to the collective interest, as it seeks to deny over 200 million Nigerians the economic and developmental benefits of a critical national asset.
Nigerians should, therefore, view such interventions with the caution they deserve and reject efforts aimed at derailing progress for narrow personal or political gain. The national interest must not be sacrificed on the altar of a hidden agenda.
Fagbemi, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice writes from Abuja.
Comments
Post a Comment