News & Events

General News
General News Firm's Achievements Government Decisions Judicial Decision New Legislations Other News

Broader Perspectives and Achievements in 2024 (I): “Legislative Initiatives” 

As part of our broader perspectives on F.O. Akinrele & Co’s practice areas, we are constantly presented with opportunities to influence legislation and forge a path towards better governance in the Nigerian commercial sector. Over the past 12 months, our Transport Law Group has been engaged in several legislative initiatives exemplified by the following key...

Read more

Broader Perspectives and Achievements in 2024 (I): “Legislative Initiatives” 

As part of our broader perspectives on F.O. Akinrele & Co’s practice areas, we are constantly presented with opportunities to influence legislation and forge a path towards better governance in the Nigerian commercial sector.

Over the past 12 months, our Transport Law Group has been engaged in several legislative initiatives exemplified by the following key federal and state public sector legislative initiatives in the Nigerian maritime and transport sectors: 

The Coastal and Inland Shipping (Cabotage) Act 2003 and the Suppression of Piracy and Other Maritime Offences (SPOMO) Act 2019.

The Cabotage Act 2003

The Cabotage Act primarily reserves the commercial transportation of goods and services within Nigerian coastal and inland waters to vessels flying the Nigerian flag and owned by persons of Nigerian citizenship. The Acts seeks to limit foreign participation in domestic coastal trade and promotes indigenous shipping.

SPOMO Act 2019 

The SPOMO Act aims to deter would-be offenders and protect the integrity of maritime activities. It was enacted in 2019 to combat the problem of maritime insecurity in Nigeria, by preventing and suppressing piracy, armed robbery and other unlawful acts done against a ship, aircraft and other maritime craft, including a fixed or floating platform. It defines acts of piracy, armed robbery at sea, and other unlawful acts perpetrated within Nigeria’s territorial waters and exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Between 2023 – 2024, we were engaged to lead a critical review of both legislations by the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), the Nigerian government agency responsible for regulation and safety of shipping within the Nigerian maritime and coastal waters.  

The objectives were to substantially review and draft the terms and provisions of both enactments incorporating international best practices in view of new and developing challenges in various aspects of both laws, particularly in field of enforcement. 

The work culminated in the drafting of a Cabotage Bill (2023) and SPOMO Bill (2023) which have since been presented to the Nigerian legislature for debate and passage into law.

The Ogun State Transport Reform Bill

In 2023-2024, the Ogun State government (a state within the western region of Nigeria), through the Nigerian Infrastructure Advisory Facility (a partner to Adam Smith International) engaged our Transport Law Group to conduct a legal and regulatory review of the Ogun State Transport Reform bill. This required a review and appraisal of the institutional and governance structure of the Ogun State transport sector. 

The ultimate objective was to coordinate and enhance productivity and promote a viable concessioning and commercialization regime for the Ogun State transport sector. 

In examining this bill, the main observations were the need for more coherence in the unification of all the transportation organs of Ogun State and the review of extant laws in order to avoid a proliferation of laws and avoid conflicts between Ogun State’s extant transport laws and the Transport Sector Reform Bill. 

Our reform and appraisal report on the Transport Sector Reform Bill has been submitted to the Ogun State government for further legislative steps to be taken.

Participating in legislative initiatives such as this will remain F.O. Akinrele & Co’s priority for many years to come.

Broader Perspectives and Achievements in 2024 (II): “Corporate Social Responsibility and Institution Building”

 Broader Perspectives and Achievements in 2024: “Corporate Social Responsibility and institution Building”  The expansion and deepening of our practice areas and our regional goals remain our core objectives. These objectives have over the past two decades, coalesced with the broader perspectives of corporate social responsibilty (CSR), which include our strong commitment to institutions of higher...

Read more

Broader Perspectives and Achievements in 2024 (II): “Corporate Social Responsibility and Institution Building”

 Broader Perspectives and Achievements in 2024: “Corporate Social Responsibility and institution Building” 

The expansion and deepening of our practice areas and our regional goals remain our core objectives. These objectives have over the past two decades, coalesced with the broader perspectives of corporate social responsibilty (CSR), which include our strong commitment to institutions of higher learning in Africa. 

Over the past 12 months, our support for the Oil and Gas Bar of the University of Lagos and the Maritime Law Students Society of the Obafemi Awolowo University has been demonstrated through sponsorship and the involvement of our partners and associates in their key projects and activities. We have also incorporated their members into our extensive law internship programmes. 

A commitment towards such institutions as these and to future generations of lawyers and industry experts remain at the forefront of our practice initiatves. 

These institution building initiatives also act as a trigger to the improvements of our African institutions by enhancing their functions and changing the way people relate to each other in public activities. 

Our plan is to expand these initiatives on a yearly basis to West African institutions of higer learning and then on a regional basis to Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa. 

UPDATES ON THE NIGERIAN GAS SECTOR IN 2024: “YEAR 3 OF THE DECADE OF GAS”

Nigeria is Africa’s biggest oil producer but a marginal gas player. In March 2021, the Nigerian government declared the 2020s, Nigeria’s ‘decade of gas’. The decade of gas policy has signalled Nigeria’s renewed focus on gas as the fuel of choice for powering Nigeria’s industrial ambitions. According to the plan, the Federal Government’s target is...

Read more

UPDATES ON THE NIGERIAN GAS SECTOR IN 2024: “YEAR 3 OF THE DECADE OF GAS”

Nigeria is Africa’s biggest oil producer but a marginal gas player. In March 2021, the Nigerian government declared the 2020s, Nigeria’s ‘decade of gas’.

The decade of gas policy has signalled Nigeria’s renewed focus on gas as the fuel of choice for powering Nigeria’s industrial ambitions. According to the plan, the Federal Government’s target is to deliver 10 projects that would significantly impact the economy; attract $14 billion in foreign direct investment, raise $12 billion in revenue through royalties and taxes, and create two million jobs by 2030.

Nigeria has the tenth largest gas reserves globally with an estimated 208 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of proven gas reserves according to the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC.

Despite this huge potential, gas production remains relatively low. In 2021, Nigeria produced 1.62 tcf of gas, 50.7 percent of which was exported as liquefied natural gas (LNG), behind Algeria (3.56 tcf) and Egypt (2.4 tcf) who have much smaller reserves.

Nigeria hopes to be a major supplier to Europe as the continent shifts away from Russian gas.

Yet significant challenges remain. Developing a holistic solution to help ensure energy access and security will require improving investor confidence in the sector. Developing a local gas market will require stakeholders and consumers to be confident that gas flows won’t stop abruptly.

The Decade of Gas so Far

Nigeria has implemented several policies aimed at increasing the domestic utilization of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG), and gas-to-power. Some have focused on reducing and commercializing gas flares and developing industrial gas markets.

Nigeria’s energy transition plan sees gas as a key transition fuel that will help meet energy needs in the short term.

In 2020, the NNPC began developing its most ambitious gas project, the Ajaokuta-Kaduna-Kano pipeline. The 614km pipeline is a massive $2.5 billion project that will transport gas from production centers in the south to industrial clusters and production centers in the north.

The pipeline will also provide gas for three planned thermal power stations in Abuja (1,350MW), Kaduna (900MW), and Kano (1,350MW) as well as feedstock for industrial production of petrochemicals and fertilizers. The project was slated for completion in the first quarter of 2023, but the NNPC has extended this timeline to the third quarter of 2023 due to what it described as security and terrain challenges. 

Other key projects being developed include a second Escravos to Lagos Pipeline System which will double the capacity of the current transport network improving supply to about 9 power plants located in its corridor. The Obiafu – Obrikom – Oben (OB3) gas line is also being developed and will improve supply to petrochemical industries. The NNPC’s ultimate goal is to ensure domestic gas utilization of 5 billion standard cubic feet (bscf) daily.

The government is promoting CNG as the key fuel for transport. In 2022, the NNPC announced a plan to convert about 500,000 petrol and diesel vehicles into CNG-powered and deploy 580 gas-filling stations over 18 months. This plan also extends to replacing small diesel and petrol-powered generators, the main energy source for off-grid and underserved customers, with gas-powered alternatives.

Overcoming Market Challenges

To fully achieve the benefits of these initiatives and projects, the government needs to provide solutions to some of the policy and market challenges that have hampered domestic gas utilization.

Gas-fired power plants constitute about 87 percent (about 14GW) of Nigeria’s total installed power generation capacity. However, plants routinely suffer from gas supply constraints. This challenge is linked to the overall lack of liquidity in the power sector and also to the fact that the domestic gas market is a regulated one. When power generation companies are unable to pay and the domestic gas pricing is unattractive, gas suppliers prioritize international buyers that can pay.

A related problem is that there is no incentive for these producers to invest in infrastructure for domestic gas supply. Investments will be limited to off-shore basins that are near export ports. Activated and enforced gas sale and purchase contracts are necessary to make gas projects bankable and spur private-sector investment.

Another key challenge that disrupts gas flow is the sabotage of pipelines by acts of vandalism. Although instances of vandalism have decreased from its height in the 2010s, it remains a huge issue that affects the country, costing money in not only lost products but also repairs. A 2014 report from the U.K.-based Stakeholder Democracy Network (SDN), notes that pipeline vandalism costs oil companies $14bn annually. In October 2022, NLNG declared a force majeure, citing the unavailability of major liquids evacuation pipelines due to sabotage and vandalism.

Developing a holistic solution to natural gas production and supply in Nigeria will ensure energy security and improve investor confidence in the sector. A holisitic solution that creates a thriving local gas market for the power sector will also require more confident stakeholders and consumers.

THE NIGERIA-MOROCCO GAS PIPELINE

A most significant Nigerian gas utilisation project is the Nigeria-Morocco Gas Pipeline which was proposed in a December 2016 agreement between the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and the Moroccan Office National des Hydrocarbures et des Mines (National Board of Hydrocarbons and Mines) (ONHYM).

The following are its key details:

  • Capacity: 30 billion cubic m/year
  • Length: 5,660 km
  • Cost: US$25 billion

The pipeline would connect Nigerian gas to every coastal country in West Africa (Benin, Togo, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Gambia, Senegal, and Mauritania), ending at Tangiers, Morocco, and Cádiz, Spain.

It would be an extension of the existing West African Gas Pipeline, which already connects Nigeria with Benin, Togo, and Ghana. Industry experts have stated that this is a preferred route rather than the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline, arguing that the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline would have to pass through a region with significant militant activity.

Upon completion, the gas pipeline will be the world’s longest offshore pipeline second longest pipeline overall. Based on the 25-year estimate given in 2017, construction will be completed by 2046. In June 2023 it was reported that Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Guinea, and Benin had signed agreements with Morocco and Nigeria to participate in the Nigeria-Morocco gas pipeline project. The signing ceremony took place at the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) headquarters in Lagos, Nigeria, alongside the steering committee meeting for the Nigeria-Morocco gas pipeline project, which was attended by representatives from ECOWAS and all the relevant countries. Following this development, a total of ten states are now involved in the project, building upon the agreements previously signed with ECOWAS, Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, and Ghana.

Nigeria’s Exchange Rate Volatility and Foreign Direct Investment : Is This A Conundrum With a Solution in Sight? 

In 2024, exchange rate volatility has reached unprecedented levels. With unprecedented erosions of Naira values against foreign currencies particularly, the US Dollar, GBP Sterling and the Euro. Februry  At the commencement of the term of the current government in May 2023, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as a key part of the new government’s...

Read more

Nigeria’s Exchange Rate Volatility and Foreign Direct Investment : Is This A Conundrum With a Solution in Sight? 

In 2024, exchange rate volatility has reached unprecedented levels. With unprecedented erosions of Naira values against foreign currencies particularly, the US Dollar, GBP Sterling and the Euro. Februry 

At the commencement of the term of the current government in May 2023, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as a key part of the new government’s economic policy measures, annouced changes to the way the country’s foreign exchange market would work. Foreign currencies are to be bought and sold at rates determined by the market and not by the Central Bank. 

This signaled an intention of the government to allow market forces to determine the value of the Naira. The intentions were very well placed in view of the prevailing regime of multiple exchange rates in the previous government in 2015 – 2023.

Under the multiple exchange rate regime, foreign and domestic investor confidence had been eroded which induced foreign exchange rate volatility. In June 2023, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) repeatedly called on Nigeria to end its multiple rate regime. The huge gap between the official and unofficial rates caused severe shortages of foreign exchange by discouraging supply from official sources. 

This has had major inflationary implications on the Nigerian economy as well as severe adverse effects on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) 

What is the genesis of the volatility and are there solutions in sight?

BACKGROUND

THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE MARKET 

This is not the first time Nigeria will be liberalising its foreign exchange market. The first was in 1986; further efforts followed in 1995, 1999 and 2016. All were marred by various impediments in implementation. 

In 2016, the float was half-hearted. The Governor of the CBN stated then that the government would retain the official rate for “critical transactions”. The intention also was for the CBN to intervene regularly according to the dynamics of the market as the market continued to evolve steadily and as more money was expected to come into the country.

The float became official in June 20, 2016, and the Naira, of course, tumbled to ₦280/$1 just 1 day later. The black market however responded more favourably, moving from ₦347/$1 to ₦337/$1. The CBN was optimistic that official and black markets would merge and the naira would settle around ₦250/$1.

In truth it was never really a float. The official window for “critical transactions” was never defined and the Naira did not rise and fall as it should in a free market.The 2016 naira float policy did not meet a ready and able market that Nigerians could leverage, and foreign exchange speculators took every opportunity to create bubbles in the market which eventually led to Naira rates dropping further.

By 2017, the Naira went up to ₦300/$1, and the black market did not merge with interbank rates as hoped. It reached an all-time low of ₦525/$1. 

From 2015 – 2023, multiple exchange rates signaled a dysfunctional economy. It eroded investor confidence and induced foreign exchange rate volatility. In June 2023, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) repeatedly called on Nigeria to end its multiple rate regime. The huge gap between the official and unofficial rates caused severe shortages of foreign exchange by discouraging supply through official channels and encouraging bad actors to exploit tand widen the gap between the exchange official and parallel rates  

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT (FDI)

The last two decades have seen a steady drop in FDI and this together with the foreign exchange volatility is attibutable to a variety of problems in the Nigerian business environment including certainy of regulation 

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) cited as the base cause, the global economic recession which had exposed Nigeria to various macroeconomic instabilities as the cause of the dip in investment flow into the country. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Nigeria had experienced a steady decline in FDI since 2008 when the world experienced an economic global meltdown. However, before the economic meltdown, the growth of foreign direct investment in the country has had a mix trend. In this regard, although both have witnessed a declining trend, one must identify a clear dichotomy between FDI in the oil sector and FDI in the non-oil sector with the former being more resilient than the latter due to the fact that earnings are in hard currency.

A survey report from the studies by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) indicated that FDI inflows to Nigeria fell by 27 percent i.e. from $4.7bn recorded in 2014 to $3.4bn achieved in 2015.

From 2015-2023 and coupled with the effect of COVID, the level of non-oil FDI has dropped significantly and become a major concern with notable subsidiaries of multinationals such as Paterson Zochonics (PZ) Nigeria Plc (subsidiary of PZ Cussons Plc), a 124 year old Nigerian company and a major British manufacturer of personal healthcare products and consumer goods moving to delist its shares from the Nigerian stock exchange in 2023 due to foreign exchange challenges. Another notable example is Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) Nigeria Plc (subsidiary of GSK a global pharmaceuticals company) deciding to cease doing business in Nigeria, 

CURRENT SITUATION

Due to the absence of local production and the recent liberalisation of commodity imports, the IMF in its “Post Financing Assessment and Staff Report” of Febraury 2024 has warned that Nigeria faces a risk of a 33% currency depreciation in 2024 which could lead to a massive surge in inflation, reaching a peak of 44% in 2024. 

The three key problems that afflict Nigeria’s foreign exchange market are the lack of transparency, foreign exchange shortages and volatility. 

Shortages occur mainly because about 90% of Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings come from the oil sector and 60% of government revenue come from the oil sector. Since the sharp drop in oil prices in 2020 (and even though oil prices have become more robust since 2021 to date) the foreign exchange market has remained volatile with considerable increases in foreign exchange demand in a predominantly import based economy. 

To make matters worse, much of the foreign exchange from non-oil sources (such as diaspora remittances, tourism and export of non-oil products) is channelled through the black market and not through the banking system.

However there are two perspectives that must be taken in addressing the problem, the first is the long term perspective and the second is the short term perspective, both of which must immediately be embarked upon simultaneously.

LONG TERM PERSPECTIVE

The long term solutions to the foreign exchange problem remain heavy public and private sector investment in:

  1. Addressing the infrastructure deficit Nigeria suffers such as the lack of stable and comprehensive electricity power in urban and rural areas; comprehensive and integrated road, rail water transportation for persons and goods; 
  2. Health care
  3. Educaition
  4. Local raw materials development in the agro-allied industires and the oil, gas and solid minerals sectors
  5. Import substitution by the development of local manufacturing based on local raw materials particularly for food production and the manufacture of and production of machinery, components and finished goods which are presently being imported

However, these are long term solutions, which require consistent planning and policy implementation by successive governments.

SHORT TERM PERSPECTIVE

The short term perspective is of immediate importance due to the highly inflationary impact the devaluation of the Naira is having on the Nigerian economy, The last seven months have seen extraordinary and unprecedented volatility with the exchange rates dropping weekly and even daily. 

The government has, in a bid to assuage public concerns sought to address the spikes in demand for foreign exchange by a basket of short term solutions.  

Amidst calls for the federal government to tighten up monetary policy by increasing interest rates thus curbing inflation, the government is currently in a bid to reduce the spikes in the demand for foreign exchange. In furtherance of this, the government is identifying potential problem areas in government activities as well as, intervening in the official foreign exchange market and in the parallel market. 

Problem Areas 

Addressing revenue leakages

The leakages from the oil sector stemming from a lack of tranparency in the governance of the sector have led to hard currency revenue leakages. This includes a lack of proper oversight of Nigerian share of crude oil allocations under contracting arrangements with the International Oil Companies, exposing such crude oil to unlawful third party actors and the syndicated theft of crude oil.

The activities of state governments after the disbursement of money by the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) have also come under scrutiy. Such actions have contributed to the depreciation of the naira, according to data and interviews with people familiar with the matter.

It has been discovered that portions of the funds from FAAC were often changed to dollars by some governments at the parallel market, putting more pressure on the naira.

An analysis shows that from July 2023 to January 2024, the Naira depreciated in six months immediately in the parallel market after the FAAC shared money to the federal, state and local governments.

With the removal by the Federal Goverenment of fuel subsidies, more volumes of naira are being shared by the federal, state and local governments and some of these monies are changed to dollars at the parallel market.

Interventions in the Official Market

In a series of guidelines recently, the CBN ordered Deposit Money Banks to sell their excess dollar stock and maintain certain level of prudential thresholds.

The new guidelines provide that the Nett Open Position (NOP) limit of the overall foreign currency assets and liabilities of banks shall not exceed “20% short or 0% long of shareholders’ funds”. The apex bank said the move was due to concerns over the growth in foreign currency exposures of banks through their NOPs.

Delaying Oil Company Remittances

In a move aimed at stabilising the naira, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has announced a new policy restricting international oil companies (IOCs) from repatriating 100 percent of their foreign exchange proceeds abroad immediately.

The policy, which takes effect immediately in February 2024, limits IOCs to repatriate only 50 percent of their proceeds immediately while the other 50 percent will be repatriated 90 days from the day of inflow.

Policing Foreign Exchange Racketeering

The federal government is also seeking to disrupt and prevent currency racketeering, foreign exchange rate manipulation, money laundering and the financing of terrorism by stopping the proliferation of unregulated transactions. 

As a number of transactions are being done through Bureaux De Change (BDC), the federal government has through the CBN unveiled a set of regulatory guidelines titled  “REVISED REGULATORY AND SUPERVISORY GUIDELINES FOR BUREAU DE CHANGE OPERATIONS IN NIGERIA”

  1. BDCs shall be divided into two tiers, with different requirements for capital, presence, and locations.
  2. BDCs shall have a minimum capital of N2 billion for Tier 1 and N500 million for Tier 2, and other fees and deposits to be specified later
  3. Reporting requirments have been imposed on transactios over a minimum threshold of $ 10,000

The foregoing are included in a number of enumerated guidelines which are aimed at bringing BDCs under a similar supervisory and regulatory oversight as banks.

The CBN will expect these measures to have an immediate impact on the foreign exchange market. 

Our Corporate, Foreign Investment  and Capital Markets Department at F.O. Akinrele & Co. will contine to monitor these developments closely.

Nigerian Maritime Sector Developments: The Significance of the New Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 2023

The Nigerian maritime sector has always represented a significant commercial engine of the Nigerian economy. Opportunities for Nigeria’s economic growth through linkages in global and inter-Africa supply chains through our maritime lanes remain robust and significant.  The efficiency and adaptability of our maritime sector are thus critical and the Nigerian government has laid down a marker by prioritising the need to...

Read more

Nigerian Maritime Sector Developments: The Significance of the New Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 2023

The Nigerian maritime sector has always represented a significant commercial engine of the Nigerian economy. Opportunities for Nigeria’s economic growth through linkages in global and inter-Africa supply chains through our maritime lanes remain robust and significant. 

The efficiency and adaptability of our maritime sector are thus critical and the Nigerian government has laid down a marker by prioritising the need to augment the nation’s GDP from the maritime sector.

For the first time, a Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy has been established to harness the nation’s ocean and coastal resources for economic growth. 

In line with these initiatives, the Nigerian Judiciary is also playing its role by updating the Admiralty Procedure Rules, to foster a fit-for-purpose dispute resolution mechanism for stakeholders in the sector and this is symbolised by the enactment of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules, 2023 (“the AJPR 2023“).

After consultation with maritime practitioners, the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules of 2011 (“the AJPR 2011”) was repealed and replaced by the AJPR 2023 under the authority of the Honourable Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Terhiemba Tsoho, in exercise of his powers under Section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Section 21 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991 (AJA). 

The AJPR aims at augmenting the Admiralty Practice and Procedure at the Federal High Court, bringing it in line with global best practices and making Nigeria a regional dispute resolution hub for Africa.

Several changes have been made. The most notable are outlined below:

Notable New Provisions:

1. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADMIRALTY DIVISIONS AND THE DESIGNATION OF ADMIRALTY JUDGES: 

The Chief Judge has now mandated the establishment of Admiralty Divisions for the Court and designated Judges of the Federal High Court as Admiralty Judges. This is significant in ensuring that specialist Judges focus on maritime cases exclusively.

2. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ADMIRALTY REGISTRY AND THE HEAD OF THE ADMIRALTY REGISTRY: 

The establishment of the Admiralty Registry of the Admiralty Division of the Court and the empowerment of the Admiralty Marshal (or his substitute) to head the Admiralty Registry of each Admiralty Division further reinforces the clear objective of promoting maritime specialisation.

3. VALIDITY OF WARRANT OF ARREST IRRESPECTIVE OF TRANSFER OF ACTION: 

The AJPR 2023, in preserving the position that an admiralty action in rem may be commenced in the Judicial Division of the Court in which the res may be found or is expected to arrive. have introduced two novel provisions:

  1.  Where an admiralty action in rem is not commenced in a Judicial Division where the subject of the maritime (the “res”) is located or expected to arrive. provision is now made for the transfer of the warrant of arrest to the appropriate Judicial Division where the subject of the action is located or expected to arrive, and the warrant of arrest shall remain enforceable against the res in any Judicial Division in which the res may be located. 
  2. Where a suit is commenced in any Judicial Division other than the Judicial Division where it ought to be commenced, the Rules provide that the suit may be heard and determined in that Judicial Division unless the Court directs otherwise. 

4. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES IN ACTION IN REM

The AJPR 2023 has abolished the previous requirement of specifying the “relevant person” as a defendant, in an action in rem in relation to a proprietary maritime claim. The only parties to be specified as the defendant in the Writ of Summons are the Ship or Other property. However, in an action in rem in relation to a general maritime claim, as in addition to specifying the ship or other property, a relevant person must be specified as a defendant.

This helps to clear up unneccsary technicalities that have developed in recent years, which have unfortunately impeded the progress of maritime actions.

5. RECOGNITION OF PHYSICAL AND DIGITAL SERVICE

The AJPR 2023, mandates that a Writ of Summons, a Court order of arrest, and a warrant of arrest in an action in rem, be served through physical service. 

Additionally, the Rules have now accomodated a digital approach allowing for other Court Processes in an action in rem to be served on the defendant through the defendant’s email address. 

Also, a legal practitioner in representing the defendant, can be properly served with such other Court Processes.

6. MEDIUM OF SERVICE WHERE VESSEL IS ABANDONED OR DEFENDANT’S WHEREABOUTS UNKNOWN

The AJPR 2023, provides that where an action in rem is commenced against the ship or other property which has been abandoned in Nigeria or in personam is filed against the defendant who does not reside in or carry on business in Nigeria through an agent, the Court may order service on such defendant or owner of ship or other property and such service shall be done at the last known address of the defendants business and which shall be delivered by Courier between Nigeria and in the Country of business. 

Alternatively, the service shall be by any mode as accepted by the Court.

7. ARRESTING A SHIP AND OTHER PROPERTY

DIGITILISATION

The AJPR 2023 introduces electronic filing (“e-filing) that has been in use in the judicial divisions of state high court and in major cities in country.

There are provisions for the physical filings (to be done at the Admiralty Registry) or e-filing (to be done at the Admiralty E-filing Unit) as regards, ex parte applications for a warrant arrest of a ship or other property. Such e-filed ex-parte applications must be in PDF (Portable Document Format) and shall be sent to the email address as shall be provided by the Admiralty Registry. E-filing, fees payable for the court processes shall be assessed and paid online.

EXPEDITIOUS – PHYSICAL & VIRTUAL HEARINGS

The AJPR 2023 mandates that where it is practicable, such application shall be heard and determined within  a twenty-four (24) hour timeline from the date of filing, and such proceedings may be conducted physically or virtually on any day, including Sundays and public holidays.

CAVEATS AGAINST ARREST

The AJPR 2023 now requires that before a warrant of arrest is issued, the applicant must apply for a search to be made in the caveat book to determine whether or not there is a caveat against the arrest of such ship or other property. 

Upon such application for search, the Admiralty Registry is to issue a report of the search and such report shall be in Form 8A (Report of Search of Caveat Against Arrest Register).

This is an improvement from the uncertain and controversial position under the AJPR 2011, where a prospective plaintiff  was required to file an affidavit stating whether or not there is a caveat against the arrest of such ship or other property. This position was susceptible to manipulation as in many cases, the Court may not be provided with the correct information. 

8. WARRANT OF ARREST FOR FOREIGN COURT PROCEEDINGS AND NIGERIAN OR INTERNATIONAL SEATED ARBITRATIONS

The AJPR 2023 introduces a simplified process of obtaining a warrant of arrest for ships or property in support of foreign court proceedings or arbitration proceedings within or outside Nigeria. The provision ensures efficiency by allowing the Applicant to file such an application without commencing a separate action. The Rules mandate that such an application will be accompanied by the certified true copy (CTC) of the Court or Arbitration Processes, and a duly notarised undertaking as to indemnity if later found that the order for arrest should not have been made.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The AJPR 2023 establishes a new and progressive legal regime for Admiralty Proceedings in Nigeria. steering it into alignment with contemporary maritime realities. 

It is advised that all stakeholders in the maritime sector, including legal practitioners, shipping companies, and other relevant parties, familiarize themselves with the Rules to effectively navigate the intricacies of maritime legal proceedings.

The Nigerian Electricity Amendment Act 2024 : “ Power to the People at Last?”

The Electricity Act Amendment (EAA) bill, 2024, was signed into law on 9 February 2024. It seeks to reform the Nigerian electricity sector and addresses the challenges of power generation, transmission, distribution, and consumption.  The EAA introduces several changes and innovations to the Electricity Regulation Act, 2006, which was the previous legal framework for the electricity sector.  Key objectives of the EAA...

Read more

The Nigerian Electricity Amendment Act 2024 : “ Power to the People at Last?”

The Electricity Act Amendment (EAA) bill, 2024, was signed into law on 9 February 2024. It seeks to reform the Nigerian electricity sector and addresses the challenges of power generation, transmission, distribution, and consumption. 

The EAA introduces several changes and innovations to the Electricity Regulation Act, 2006, which was the previous legal framework for the electricity sector. 

Key objectives of the EAA are:

  1. Promoting the development and environmental protection of host communities of power generating companies (GENCOs) by setting aside 5% of their annual operating expenditures for infrastructure projects in the host communities.
  • Establishing the Transmission System Operator SOC Ltd, a new entity that will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and expansion of the national grid, as well as the coordination and dispatch of electricity from various sources.
  • Creating an open market platform that will allow for competitive electricity trading among GENCOs, distribution companies (DISCOs), eligible customers, and other market participants.
  • Assigning the duties, powers, and functions of the Transmission System Operator SOC Ltd to the National Transmission Company South Africa SOC Ltd, a joint venture between the Nigerian and South African governments, which will own and manage the transmission assets and infrastructure.
  • Enhancing the regulatory and enforcement powers of the National Energy Regulator (NER), which will oversee and monitor the electricity sector and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act.

Key Benefits of the EAA are:

  1. Improving the quality and reliability of electricity supply and increasing the availability and diversity of power sources.
  1. Fostering the development and welfare of host communities, as it will provide them with funds and opportunities for infrastructure projects, such as roads, schools, health centers, and water supply.
  1. Stimulating the growth and competitiveness of the electricity market, as it will encourage more investment and innovation in the power sector and create more choices and options for consumers and producers of electricity.
  1. Enhancing the transparency and accountability of the electricity sector, as it will ensure that the NER and other stakeholders adhere to the principles and standards of good governance, and that the electricity tariffs and prices reflect the true costs and benefits of electricity.

Key challenges and Risks to sector and economy at large are:

  1. It may face legal and political opposition from some stakeholders, such as the existing GENCOs and DISCOs, who may perceive the bill as a threat to their interests and profits, and may challenge its constitutionality and validity in court.
  2. It may encounter technical and operational difficulties, such as the lack of adequate infrastructure and capacity, the need for coordination and cooperation among various entities and agencies, and the possibility of cyberattacks and sabotage on the transmission system and the open market platform.
  3. It may require significant financial and human resources, such as the funding and expertise needed to implement and sustain the reforms and innovations introduced by the Act, and the compensation and training needed for the affected workers and communities.

The implementation of the EAA will be monitored by industry operators and prospective investors. It is a positive step in the right direction and if properly implemented, will bring rapid development to the electricity sector.

ANTHONY NKADI – MILESTONES IN CORE PRACTICE AREAS

In 2022, Mr. Anthony Nkadi, a longstanding partner in the Shipping and Transport Group was appointed Head of Regional Shipping and Transport Projects Group (RSTPG).  This appointment combines his expertise as a seasoned maritime practitioner with his considerable aviation law experience, which have critically addressed the strategic needs, critical opportunities and challenges of the firm’s clients....

Read more

ANTHONY NKADI – MILESTONES IN CORE PRACTICE AREAS

In 2022, Mr. Anthony Nkadi, a longstanding partner in the Shipping and Transport Group was appointed Head of Regional Shipping and Transport Projects Group (RSTPG). 

This appointment combines his expertise as a seasoned maritime practitioner with his considerable aviation law experience, which have critically addressed the strategic needs, critical opportunities and challenges of the firm’s clients.

This appointment marks another milestone in his career, which has been defined by hard work, commitment and professionalism.

BENSON AKUNYA – MILESTONES IN CORE PRACTICE AREAS

In 2022, Benson Akunya, our litigation partner of considerable years, recorded a number of milestones in our core practice areas and we have the pleasure of announcing his appointment into the firm’s Regional Litigation Projects Group (RLPG). Benson Akunya continues to make substantial inroads in expanding the firm’s core practice areas of litigation, arbitration and...

Read more

BENSON AKUNYA – MILESTONES IN CORE PRACTICE AREAS

In 2022, Benson Akunya, our litigation partner of considerable years, recorded a number of milestones in our core practice areas and we have the pleasure of announcing his appointment into the firm’s Regional Litigation Projects Group (RLPG). Benson Akunya continues to make substantial inroads in expanding the firm’s core practice areas of litigation, arbitration and dispute resolution, demonstrating the firm’s renewed focus on the firm’s strategic growth priorities in Nigeria and the African region.

This appointment has been characterised by his hard work, commitment and professionalism.

THE NIGERIAN DECADE OF GAS – POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FROM THE RUSSIA – UKRAINE CONFLICT

THE DECADE OF GAS On 29 March 2021, the Nigeria International Petroleum Summit (N.I.P.S) Pre-Summit Conference, marked the official launch of the “The Decade of Gas in Nigeria Initiative” in furtherance of the Federal Government initiative that declared January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2030 as “The Decade of Gas Development for Nigeria”.  At a time of...

Read more

THE NIGERIAN DECADE OF GAS – POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FROM THE RUSSIA – UKRAINE CONFLICT

THE DECADE OF GAS

On 29 March 2021, the Nigeria International Petroleum Summit (N.I.P.S) Pre-Summit Conference, marked the official launch of the “The Decade of Gas in Nigeria Initiative” in furtherance of the Federal Government initiative that declared January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2030 as “The Decade of Gas Development for Nigeria”.

 At a time of rising global demand for cleaner energy sources this has been viewed as a bold statement that gas development and utilization should be a national priority to stimulate economic growth, further improve Nigeria’s energy mix, drive investments, and provide the much-needed jobs for Nigerian citizens and eliminating energy poverty, currently affecting about 40% of the population.

The commitment to developing the gas value chain by reviewing and gazetting policies and regulations to enhance operations in the sector had been commenced under the National Gas Policy (2017).

RECENT GAS DEVELOPMENTS

Developments have been made in recent years in gas infrastructure development.

The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Ltd is currently deepening natural gas utilization to reduce energy poverty through the National Gas Expansion Programme and intensifying the use of petrochemicals.

The NNPC has also upscaled efforts in the gas sector through various projects like the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas NLNG Train 7, Ajaokuta–Kaduna–Kano Natural Gas Pipeline (AKK), OB3 and ELPS among others. The (NLNG) project since delivering its 1st LNG cargo in October 1999 continues to be the Federal Government’s arrowhead in the reduction of gas flaring in Nigeria and contributes about one per cent to Nigerian GDP, having generated $114 billion in revenues over the years, $9 billion in taxes, $18 billion in dividends to the Federal Government and $15 billion in Feed gas Purchase.

The NNPC is also expanding and integrating both domestic and regional power grids and growing the domestic gas markets through Autogas/Compressed Natural Gas/Liquified Petroleum Gas to power vehicles.

On Wednesday, February 2, at the 2022 Nigeria International Energy Summit (NIES) held in Abuja, the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) newly created under the Petroleum Industry Act (2021) revealed that Nigeria’s proven natural gas reserve had risen to 209.5 Trillion Cubic Feet (TCF) as of January 1, 2022. The new figure represents a major increase of 2.97 TCF in proven natural gas reserves, which, of itself, represented a 1.42 percentage increase from the 206.53 TCF recorded on January 1, 2021.

Such growth, together with the prospects for continued increase, come at the most auspicious moment, given the possibility of buying into the current European need for alternative sourcing of gas.

In January 2002, the idea of a Trans-Saharan Natural Gas Pipeline that was first mooted in the 1970s, came alive when the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and the Algerian national oil and gas company, Sonatrach, signed a Memorandum of Understanding for preparations of the project. Aimed at enabling Europe to tap into West Africa’s abundant natural gas supplies, the pipeline included the northernmost Nigerian neighbouring country of the Republic of the Niger for two excellent rationales. The pipeline was going to link through its borders to get from Nigeria to Algeria and it was expected to boost exploration in Niger and expand its energy industry. The 4,128-kilometre pipeline, with 1,037 kilometres in Nigeria, 841 kilometres in Niger, and 2,310 kilometres in Algeria, and a capacity of 30 billion cubic metres of natural gas per year, will connect the Warri region in southern Nigeria, through the length of Niger to the town of Hassi R’Mel in northern Algeria, where it will connect to existing Trans-Mediterranean, Maghreb-Europe, Medgaz, and Galsi Pipelines, allowing Europe to tap into West Africa’s abundant natural gas reserves and diversifying its supply.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has opened up opportunities for gas rich nations in Africa to tap from the multi-billion-dollar market.

 Russia which accounted for about 45 per cent of the Europe’s gas imports and 40 per cent of its entire gas consumption is facing huge economic sanctions as Europe seeks to reduce dependence on their gas by 80 per cent by the end of 2022.

Nigeria has been described as a gas nation with 206.53 trillion cubic feet of proven gas deposit and hopes to use the energy source as its transition fuel.

The scramble for African gas has begun as Italy’s Prime Minister Mario Draghi on Monday, visited Algeria over diversifying gas supply mix. Italy depends on Russia for 40 per cent of gas imports.

Nigeria has Africa’s biggest proven gas reserves and ninth in the world, according to the United States Energy Information Administration.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) newly created under the Petroleum Industry Act (2021), Mr Gbenga Komolafe said, “The situation in Ukraine has actually presented a huge opportunity for Nigeria to occupy the market space in terms of the gas supply. I believe that is possible and as a regulator, we are doing everything possible to ensure that Nigeria is able to fulfil that obligation”.

“TACKLING NIGERIA’S INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES” 2022 – RENEWAL OF ENGAGEMENT OF F.O. AKINRELE & CO INFRASTRUCTURE PRACTICE BY ADAM SMITH INTERNATIONAL

In 2022, Adam Smith International through its subsidiary, the Nigerian Infrastructure Advisory Facility (NIAF) renewed the engagement of F.O. Akinrele & Co to act as legal consultants in NIAF II as it seeks to transform the Nigerian infrastructure landscape. F.O. Akinrele & Co shall continue to bring to bear, it’s global expertise in providing legal...

Read more

“TACKLING NIGERIA’S INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES” 2022 – RENEWAL OF ENGAGEMENT OF F.O. AKINRELE & CO INFRASTRUCTURE PRACTICE BY ADAM SMITH INTERNATIONAL

In 2022, Adam Smith International through its subsidiary, the Nigerian Infrastructure Advisory Facility (NIAF) renewed the engagement of F.O. Akinrele & Co to act as legal consultants in NIAF II as it seeks to transform the Nigerian infrastructure landscape.

F.O. Akinrele & Co shall continue to bring to bear, it’s global expertise in providing legal and regulatory roadmaps towards the implementation of large-scale infrastructure interventions in public road, water transportation and the urban regeneration of residential and business developments.

The infrastructure practice has been recognized for its work on a variety of integrated transportation and housing infrastructure developments, focusing on World Bank and UNCHR intervention programmes. F.O. Akinrele & Co. has advised extensively on Public-Private Partnerships including:

Lagos Waterways
Ogun State Bus and Mass Transit
Ogun/Lagos State Road Transport Network

Rendeavour Nigeria Alaro City Project development site is located on 1,000 ha (2,470 acres) within the Lekki Free Zone, the largest free zone in West Africa. The site is adjacent to the approved location for the proposed Lekki International Airport and in close proximity to the deep seaport and a number of planned industrial developments.

NATURE OF DISPUTES THAT MAY BE REFERRED TO ARBITRATION

Introduction: Arbitration is a process by which disputes or difference between two or more parties as to their mutual legal rights and liabilities is referred to and determined judicially with binding effect by the application of the law by one or more persons (the arbitral tribunal) instead of by a court.[1] An arbitration agreement is...

Read more

NATURE OF DISPUTES THAT MAY BE REFERRED TO ARBITRATION

  1. Introduction:

Arbitration is a process by which disputes or difference between two or more parties as to their mutual legal rights and liabilities is referred to and determined judicially with binding effect by the application of the law by one or more persons (the arbitral tribunal) instead of by a court.[1]

An arbitration agreement is therefore where two or more persons covenant that a dispute or a potential dispute between them shall be resolved and decided in a legally binding way by one or more impartial persons in a judicial manner, upon evidence put before him or them. The agreement is called an arbitration agreement or a submission to an arbitral proceeding when after a dispute has arisen, it is put before such person or persons for decision. The procedure is called arbitration and the decision when made is called an award.[2]

It is apposite to note that arbitration may either be voluntary or compulsory. In other words, it may be by parties’ agreement or by statutes. A voluntary arbitration is by mutual consent of the parties whilst a compulsory arbitration is that which is demanded by the provision of the statute.

2.    Meaning and test of ‘dispute’ for purposes of arbitration:

The word dispute means contention, discord, conflict, friction and antagonism. It also implies a conflict or controversy. If there was concord and harmony, then the parties have no valid legal basis to seek a reference to arbitration. Our apex Court has defined dispute to mean “act of arguing against, controversy, debate, contention as to right, claims and the like or on a matter of opinion.”[3]

A matter shall be referred to arbitration when it becomes clear or is to be interpreted to mean that a difference or dispute exists between the contending parties. Therefore, where a party admits liability of an existing debt but simply defaults to pay, or when a cause of action has been extinguished owing to the death of a party embedded in the Latin maxim, actio personalis noritur cum persona, then there is no dispute to arbitrate upon or relevant party to arbitrate with. The conflict which the parties to an arbitration agreement agree to refer to must consists of a justiciable issue triable civilly. A fair test of this is whether the difference can be compromised lawfully by way of accord and satisfaction.[4]

The next step is to determine whether the dispute or difference necessarily arises from or it is connected with the clause contained in the agreement i.e. it falls squarely within the scope of the parties’ agreement. If a party to an agreement has compromised his position by conceding to numerous alternative remedies to the other party, other than resort to arbitration, and by showing an intention to compromise, to an act of the party which he is complaining about, he has, in consequence, robbed himself of competence or premise of referring the subject matter of complaint to arbitration.[5]

3.    Arbitrable Disputes:

It is a general perception that any agreement that contains an arbitration clause shows a clear and unmistaken indication that the contract requires the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration process. Unarguably, arbitration is generally encouraged in Nigeria in particular and the international community in general because arbitration clauses reduce the court dockets to resolve disputes. Therefore, in keeping with the sanctity of agreements, the law is enthusiastic to ensure the validity of arbitration clauses notwithstanding any apparent inadequacy or lack in the normal formal language with legal contracts.

Hence, once parties covenant in their agreement to resolve their dispute through arbitration and an issue is perceived or is to be interpreted to mean a difference or dispute exists, such dispute shall be referred to arbitration. The difference or dispute must, however, arise from the clauses contained in the agreement i.e. fall within the scope of the parties’ agreement. Therefore, it is not every dispute or difference that can be referred to arbitration. The Disputes must be capable of being disposed of judicially, in a civil form. These disputes include all matters in controversy about any real or personal property, disputes as to whether a contract has been breached by either party thereto, or whether one or both parties have been discharged from performance thereof.[6]

Sections 48 (b) (i) & (ii) and 52 (2) (ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, CAP A18, Laws of Federal Republic of Nigeria[7] provide that even when an award has been procured and it becomes clear that an agreement on which the arbitral award was premised on arose from an invalid contract or the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement or is contrary to public policy, such an award is bound to be set aside. This, therefore, reinforces the position that the dispute must be capable of settlement before it qualifies as an arbitrable dispute. This is also the same position in international arbitration under Chapter VII, Article 34 (2) b) and Chapter VIII, Article 36 1) a) i) & 1 b) of UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 with amendments as adopted in 2006.[8]

4.    Matters that cannot be referred to Arbitration:

It is trite that the disputes, which are the subject of an arbitration agreement, must not cover matters, which by the law of the State are not allowed to be settled privately or by arbitration usually because this will be contrary to public policy.[9]

It is manifestly clear that the following categories of matters cannot be the subject of an arbitration agreement as enunciated by the Nigerian Supreme Court and therefore cannot be referred to arbitration: –

  1. an indictment for an offence of a public nature;
  2. disputes arising out of an illegal contract;
  3. disputes arising under agreements that are void as being by way of gaming or wagering;
  4. disputes leading to a change of status, such as a divorce petition;
  5. any agreement purporting to give an arbitrator the right to give judgment in Therefore, a criminal matter, like the allegation of fraud does not admit of settlement by arbitration. This is because these issues are a matter of public concern. It is contrary to public policy to compromise such disputes.[10]

Similarly, the Nigerian Court of Appeal has held in two decisions[11] in Esso Petroleum and Production Nigeria Ltd & Anor. (SNEPCO) vs. NNPC unreported Appeal No. CA/A/507/2012; delivered on 22 July 2016 and Shell (Nig.) Exploration and Production Ltd & 3 others vs. Federal Inland Revenue Service unreported Appeal No. CA/A/208/2012; delivered on 31 August 2016 that tax disputes arising from a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) are not arbitrable because the subject matter of the dispute is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The rationale for the above decisions seems to appear that it may be contrary to public policy to compromise the revenues due and payable to the government. These decisions are currently subject of appeals to the final Court in Nigeria. Until then, they remain the authority that tax disputes are not arbitrable.

5.    Conclusion:

It is pertinent to note that by the provisions of Section 2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1988 (ACA). (Cap A18 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004)[12] an

arbitration agreement shall be irrevocable except by agreement of the parties, or by leave of Court, or a Judge. Consequently, the mere fact that parties agree to proceed to arbitration once there is a dispute does not ipso facto make the agreement to arbitrate irrevocable because not all disputes are arbitrable. The disputes must be triable civilly. It should not be illegal or tainted with a crime or fraud.

However, it is worthy of mention that the right to go for arbitration is a personal right. It is not a constitutional right. Therefore, it can be waived by either of the parties to the agreement expressly or by contract, more particularly where the two contending parties submit their disputes to Court for determination.[13]

 

[1] Miss Nigeria –v- Oyedale (1960) NCLR 191

[2] C. N. Onuselogu Enterprises Ltd. -v- Afribank (Nigeria) Plc. (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 940) 577

[3] Plateau State & Anor. v. AG Federation & Anor.(2006) LPELR-2921(SC)

[4] Chief Felix K. Ogunwale v. Syrian Arab Republic (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 771) 127

[5] United World Ltd Inc. –v- MTS Ltd (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt.568) 106.

[6] BCC Tropical Nigeria Ltd. v. The Government of Yobe State of Nigeria & Anor. (2011) LPELR-9230 (CA).

[7] Sections 48 (b) (i) & (ii) and 52 (2) (ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, CAP A18, Laws of Federal Republic of Nigeria

[8] Chapter VII, Article 34 (2) b) and Chapter VIII, Article 36 1) a) i) & 1 b) of UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 with amendments as adopted in 2006

[9] B. J. Export & Chemical Company Ltd v. Kaduna Refining & Petro-Chemical Company Ltd (2002) LPELR- 12175(CA).

[10] Kano State Urban Development Board V. Fanz Construction Ltd. (1990) 4 NWLR (PT.142) 1 at 32-33.

[11] Esso Petroleum and Production Nigeria Ltd & Anor. (SNEPCO) vs. NNPC unreported Appeal No. CA/A/507/2012; delivered on 22 July 2016 and Shell (Nig.) Exploration and Production Ltd & 3 others vs. Federal Inland Revenue Service unreported Appeal No. CA/A/208/2012

[12] Section 2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1988 (ACA). (Cap A18 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004)

[13] Kurubo v. Zach-Motison (Nig.) Limited (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 239) 102.

THE NIGERIAN PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ACT 2021: ‘NEW BEGINNINGS & NEW CONCERNS’

In 2021, the most significant development in the energy sector was the enactment of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), bringing to a close a 20-year effort to reform the Nigerian oil and gas sector, with the aim of overhauling the regulation and governance of the oil and gas industry. A lot has changed in the sector...

Read more

THE NIGERIAN PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ACT 2021: ‘NEW BEGINNINGS & NEW CONCERNS’

In 2021, the most significant development in the energy sector was the enactment of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), bringing to a close a 20-year effort to reform the Nigerian oil and gas sector, with the aim of overhauling the regulation and governance of the oil and gas industry.

A lot has changed in the sector domestically and globally since the reform efforts began. The number of indigenous oil and gas firms has grown, but so has the number of oil-producing countries in Africa. Militancy in oil-rich communities, while remaining, has diminished. Concerns over climate change have fuelled aggressive efforts to reduce global consumption of fossil fuels, driving divestment from the Nigerian oil and gas sector by international companies and institutions.

The PIA represents a new beginning and an effort to meet the changes in the oil and gas environment. In 2019, the oil and gas sector accounted for about 5.8 percent of Nigeria’s real GDP and was responsible for 95 percent of Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings and 80 percent of its budget revenues. The law is therefore far-reaching in its remit; however, it is complex, and serious concerns remain as regards its implementation.

If well implemented, the PIA can represent an international standard for natural resource management, with clear and separate roles for the subsectors of the industry; consisting of:

  1. The existence of a commercially oriented and profit-driven national petroleum company;
  2. The codification of transparency, good governance, and accountability in the administration of the petroleum resources of Nigeria.
  3. The economic and social development of host communities; environmental remediation; and a business environment conducive for oil and gas operations to thrive in the country.

The PIA which embodies 5 Chapters, 319 Sections, and 8 Schedules, was enacted to provide for the legal, governance, regulatory, and fiscal framework for Nigerian petroleum industry, the establishment, and development of and other related matters in the upstream, midstream and downstream sectors of the petroleum industry. It, therefore created an array of provisions and innovations that will affect the private, public sector and stakeholders in the oil and gas industry.

Key provisions

Dual Regulatory and Governance Architecture

NUPRC

The Act establishes dual regulators for the petroleum industry. One is called the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission NUPRC (the “Commission”), which is a body corporate with perpetual succession whose functions are limited to only the upstream petroleum activities as provided for in Section 4 of the Act, which provides that “the Commission is responsible for the technical and commercial regulation of the upstream petroleum operations”. The Commission is also established to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations governing upstream petroleum operations.

NMDPRA

The other regulatory agency under Section 29 of the Act is the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Authority – NMDPRA (the “Authority”), responsible for the technical and commercial regulation of the midstream and downstream petroleum operations in the petroleum industry as provided under Section 29(3) of the Act.


NNPC

The PIA commercialises the perennially loss-making state-owned enterprise, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC), turning it into the NNPC Ltd, a quasi-commercial entity the ownership of which shares shall be vested with the government, and the ministries of Finance and Petroleum, who shall hold the shares on behalf of the government.

Pursuant to the PIA’s provisions, the president of Nigeria will appoint the president of NNPC Ltd as well as heads and members of the regulatory agencies. Separately, the minister of petroleum, then, will head the industry with a wide range of powers to formulate, monitor, and administer government policy under the PIA.

Importantly, the PIA provides that 30 percent of the profits of the NNPC Ltd will fund a new entity, to finance exploration in other basins in the country (Frontier Exploration Fund). Ten percent of rents on petroleum prospecting licenses and 10 percent of rents on petroleum mining leases are also assigned to Frontier exploration. The PIA is unclear on whether there will continue to be exploration in existing basins.

Host Communities

The PIA aims to address the relationship between the oil companies/operators and the host communities by creating the Host Community Development Trust Fund (HCDTF) whose purpose will be to, among others, foster sustainable prosperity, provide direct social and economic benefits from petroleum to host communities, and enhance peaceful and harmonious coexistence between licensees or lessees and host communities.

Specifically, the law stipulates that existing host community projects must be transferred to the HCDTF, and each settlor (or oil license holder) must make an annual contribution of an amount equal to 3 percent of its operating expenditure for the relevant operations from the previous year. The management committee of the trust must include one member of the host community. In addition, the act stipulates a penalty for failure to comply with host community obligations, including revocation of license.

Section 257 of the PIA also imposes the responsibility to protect oil and gas assets on host communities and stipulates that any host community that fails to protect oil assets in its community from vandalism will be held accountable for the repairs.

Fiscal framework

The PIA introduces a new tax regime, replacing the existing petroleum profits tax with a hydrocarbon tax and introducing a tax on the income of oil companies. Under this new fiscal regime, hydrocarbons—including crude oil, condensates, and natural gas liquids produced from associated gas—will be subject to taxation. Notably, crude oil from deep offshore is excluded from the tax.

A controversial provision in the PIA is the provision stating that, in the event of supply shortfalls, only companies with active refining licenses or proven track record of international crude oil and petroleum products trading will be allowed to import such products. This is a controversial provision that has been interpreted as an attempt to confer monopoly powers on a few domestic refiners.

Finally, the fiscal framework provides for penalties for gas flaring arising from midstream operations. Revenues from these penalties will accrue to the Midstream and Downstream Infrastructure Fund and will be used to finance midstream and downstream infrastructure investment.

 

KEY ISSUES

The success of the PIA are conditional on Nigeria’s political and oil industry leaders overcoming some key challenges.

The PIA’s wording does create challenges to interpretation through imprecise language. This gives rise to ambiguity.  For example, it is unclear whether host community development trust obligations are additional to existing community levies (such as the Niger Delta development levy) or will be an aggregation of those levies. Similarly, the law is silent on the definition of “frontier basin” and host community, instead deferring to the NUPRC on the definition of frontier basin and to settlors or license holders on the definition of “host community.” These definitions are not neutral to revenue; they have revenue implications. This lack of clarity creates uncertainty and even possible disputes, especially if relevant parties define them differently.

Capacity building. This law is complex and complicated. While capacity in the oil and gas sector has been built over the years, the new legal provisions and fiscal framework will need new capacities to succeed. This challenge will be particularly acute in the new regulatory institutions; in the understanding, interpretation, and application of the law; and in the management of the funds, including the HCDTF.

There are several lingering North/South disagreements about the PIA. The bill that became the PIA was originally proposed by the executive (largely supported in the North) and passed largely along regional (North/South) lines. Leading politicians from the Niger-Delta states opposed it and many lawmakers from the South believe the bill advances Northern interests to the detriment of the South.

The African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement (AfCFTA) – One year After – A Fresh Air of Optimism in 2022?

On the 1st of January 2021, continental trade between African countries significantly changed with the official commencement of the African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement (AfCFTA). The AfCTA was an initiative that had been in the pipeline since 2012, with five years of negotiations and other logistic planning, which finally crystallised on March 21, 2018,...

Read more

The African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement (AfCFTA) – One year After – A Fresh Air of Optimism in 2022?

On the 1st of January 2021, continental trade between African countries significantly changed with the official commencement of the African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement (AfCFTA).

The AfCTA was an initiative that had been in the pipeline since 2012, with five years of negotiations and other logistic planning, which finally crystallised on March 21, 2018, after 44 African countries signed the pact at an AU extraordinary summit in Kigali, Rwanda. Shortly after, 10 more countries, including Nigeria, added their signatures, and the operational phase of the AfCFTA was marked to kick off by mid-2020. However, the covid-19 pandemic threw a cog in these projections, leading to a delay in starting operations until 1 January 2021, when the AfCFTA officially kicked off.

African countries have not been able to scale up their economic activities due to a variety of reasons exacerbated by the conflicts in the 7 different regional trading blocs currently in operation, hence the need for a deeply integrated and outwardly united front from which to achieve the cohesion needed to boost the scale of economic activity in Africa. This considered, the AfCFTA is aimed at creating the world’s largest free trade area; one that integrates 1.3 billion people across 54 countries.

As at December 2021, 41 out of 54 signatory countries have ratified the treaty, making the AfCFTA the fastest instrument in the African Union to be ratified. The ratification is significant as it signals the increasing interest of the State parties. The fact that the top 4 economic powers and richest countries on the continent, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Algeria have ratified the trade agreement is clearly also significant.

The year 2021 also saw the roll-out of the pilot phase of the Pan-African Settlement System (PAPSS), a combined initiative of African Export-Import Bank (AFREXIM) and the AfCFTA, which was formerly launched in Ghana on 13 Jan 2022. The PAPSS serves as the continent-wide platform for the processing, clearing and settling of intra-African trades and commerce payments. The system was developed by the AFREXIM and promises to reduce the cost and time of payments, lower the level of banking liquidity required to make payments, and improve central bank oversight of payments.

The full implementation of PAPSS is expected to save the continent more than US$5 Billion in payment transaction costs each year.

Given the interests generated by the AfCFTA and the potentials it holds for established businesses, start-ups and SMEs, it is expected that 2022 will provide another opportunity for the State Parties to make significant progress.

According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development – UNCTAD’s Economic Development in Africa Report 2021, the total untapped export potential of intra-African trade is around $21.9 billion, equivalent to 43 per cent of intra-African exports (yearly average for 2015–2019), with an additional $9.2 billion projected through partial tariff liberalization under the AfCFTA over the next five years. This statistic highlights the ultra-low level of intra-African trade when compared with that of countries in other continents, and in particular reflects Africa’s unenviable position as an exporter of raw materials to the rest of the world.

 

Optimism v Action

After the optimism that greeted the official launch of the AfCTA, one year after the launch, trade restrictions between African countries still abound. Although the pandemic may have had some effect on the AfCFTA’s integration goals, the reluctance of African leaders to open up borders and liberalising trade remains a major impediment.

AfCFTA had projected that the phase II negotiations consisting of the underlisted would be finalised and ratified by the end of 2021, namely:

  1. Trade in goods and services,
  2. Intellectual property rights
  3. Investment and competition policy, and
  4. E-commerce

The AfCFTA projections above have not been fulfilled and there are still many loopholes in negotiations that were not finalised in 2021 among member countries. There is still a feeling of uncertainty concerning where countries stand on the agreement— an uncertainty that has affected the AfCFTA’s implementation.

The abovementioned phase II negotiations and the general framework for trade in services appears to have taken a back seat pending the conclusion of the negotiations on rules of origin.

The following are the three key challenges:

  1. With African countries favouring protectionist policies in their African trade outlook, there is some unwillingness by State parties to ratify all the articles of the agreement exemplified by the prolonged negotiations on phase I consisting of rules of origin. Many African countries are still holding out on ratifying some of the phases of the AfCFTA. These countries, who make most of their revenue from exports to non-African countries, are yet to be convinced of the benefits that the AfCFTA to their economies.
  2. A lack of a manual of information for African businesses about the AfCTA regarding the ways to take advantage of it, and a substantial percentage of African businesses are still unaware of its terms (particularly the tariff arrangements). Until businesses are aware, the costs of trading under AfCFTA will remain high.
  3. A lack of customs infrastructure and policy to be able to complement the AfCFTA’s customs and tariff obligations (only three countries in the AfCFTA so far have the infrastructural and systemic customs capabilities on par with AfCFTA benchmarks), as well as a lack of capacity in the AfCFTA’s Secretariat to push the integration agenda, given its launch in the middle of the pandemic.

 

Private Sector Initiatives

Reports suggest that the AfCFTA enjoys wide acceptance and heightened interest amongst the young African entrepreneurs and SMEs who are ready to explore the potentials that a larger African market presents.

Private sector start-ups have notwithstanding the delays of States parties sought to integrate African trade with start-ups offering services for company formation and compliance across Africa’s 54 countries and others offering a single digital infrastructure for businesses to start, scale and operate in every African country efficiently.

More traditional companies namely, two of Africa’s major logistics companies, Ethiopian Airlines Group and A-E Trade Group, signed a MoU to establish the East African smart logistics and fulfilment hub, committed to the establishment of a business relationship to provide end-to-end logistics solutions across Africa. Also, some AfCFTA-focused organisations like the AfCFTA Young Entrepreneurs Foundation (AfYEF) – have been formed. This and many other intra-African private partnerships and agreements show that the private sector has been more enthusiastic about the AfCFTA than African governments so far.

 

Expectations in 2022

The priorities for the implementation of the AfCFTA regime is for the finalisation of negotiations such that the following are agreed upon:

  1. Member States should ensure the attainment of at least 90% attainment of the Rules of Origin. The Rules if properly crafted remain the building blocks for the industrialization of Africa through increase in local production and cross-border value chains. There are over 6000 tariff lines under the HS Code system and the AfCFTA ambition is to liberalize over 90% of them. The AfCFTA Rules of Origin would require that only made in Africa goods will benefit from the tariff concession. However, measures must be put in place to prevent its abuse as non-compliance will turn the member countries into dumping grounds and lead to significant job losses and displacements of workers in key sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing.
  2. Addressing non-tariff barriers in order to harmonised customs interconnectivity system and transit procedures across the major trade corridors in Africa.  For example, the Abidjan to Lagos trade route/corridor deserves special attention in view of its significance to the ECOWAS region. The non-tariff barriers inhibiting intra-trades across the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) should also be addressed.
  3. Providing access to private businesses and individuals of general information about AfCTA particularly about progress in Phases 1 & 2 negotiations.

Nigeria’s Suppression of Piracy and Other Maritime Offences Act (2019) and the Deep Blue Project (2021)

Nigeria’s Suppression of Piracy and Other Maritime Offences Act, 2019  and the Deep Blue Project aim to ‘prevent and suppress piracy, armed robbery’ and any other unlawful act against a ship, aircraft and any other maritime craft, including fixed and floating platforms. As Nigeria gets set to deploy the Deep Blue Project to protect its coastal...

Read more

Nigeria’s Suppression of Piracy and Other Maritime Offences Act (2019) and the Deep Blue Project (2021)

Nigeria’s Suppression of Piracy and Other Maritime Offences Act2019  and the Deep Blue Project aim to ‘prevent and suppress piracy, armed robbery’ and any other unlawful act against a ship, aircraft and any other maritime craft, including fixed and floating platforms.

As Nigeria gets set to deploy the Deep Blue Project to protect its coastal waters, the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) says “piracy will no longer be allowed to thrive”.

The combined effect of these two initiatives is to halt the rising trend of piracy and other illegal acts against maritime traffic. The objective being to enhance the flow of maritime activity in Nigerian waters and the Gulf of Guinea.

 

Nigeria’s Suppression of Piracy and Other Maritime Offences Act, 2019

The Suppression of Piracy and Other Maritime Offences Act 2019 (SPOMO) gives effect to the relevant provisions of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (SUA) The SUA convention was adopted on 10 March 1988 and entered into force on 1 March 1992. Nigeria ratified his convention.

SPOMO has ended the controversy around whether the crime of sea piracy is defined in any local legislation. The Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters of armed robbery and other unlawful acts at sea.

Without clear domestic statutes, the prosecution of parties suspected of sea piracy, prior to the law’s enactment, was problematic in Nigeria.

Notwithstanding the purported domestication of the SUA Convention (and its protocol) by section 215(h) of the Merchant Shipping Act 2007 there were doubts about the proper domestication of SUA as required by the Nigerian Constitution.

Section 3 of SPOMO has clarified the position by defining ‘piracy’ as any:

(a) illegal act of violence, act of detention. or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or any passenger of a private ship or private aircraft and directed

(i) in International Waters against another ship or aircraft or against a person or property on board the ship or aircraft, or

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, person or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state;

(b) act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; and

(c) act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b) of this section.

SPOMO is a further illustration of the fact that Contracting states are empowered in accordance with their municipal laws to arrest and prosecute persons, ships or aircraft suspected of committing piracy regardless of whether the pirate or attacked ship flies a foreign flag or has a foreign crew. The definition also covers violent acts committed against property other than ships, such as aircraft and floating and fixed platforms in the Nigerian Exclusive Economic Zone.

Section 4 of SUA lists 18 maritime offences and unlawful acts at sea, which include armed robbery at sea and acts other than piracy committed within Nigeria or its maritime zone. Such acts include:

  • the hijacking of a ship, aircraft or fixed or floating platform.
  • the destruction or vandalism of a ship, installation, or navigation facility; or
  • interference with the operation of a ship, installation, or navigation facility.

Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court of Nigeria

Section 5(2) of SUA the Federal High Court, to the exclusion of all other courts, has jurisdiction to hear and determine any matter under the act.

Some Key SPOMO Provisions

Such provisions include those relating to restitution to owners of violated maritime assets and the forfeiture of proceeds of piracy or maritime offences.

The act also provides that the right of prosecution shall reside in the Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria; any officer so designated by the attorney General; or the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), with the Attorney General’s consent. These provisions have given rise to genuine concerns about the potential for delays or outright vetoes, due to bureaucratic process or political reasons in the grant by the Attorney General of consent to commence proceedings, which may be very urgent.

 

Deep Blue Project – 2021

Nigeria is investing much of its maritime safety and security hopes in the Deep Blue Project. Initiated by the Federal Ministry of Transportation and Federal Ministry of Defence, it is being implemented by the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), with participation from the Nigerian Navy, Nigerian Army, Nigerian Air Force, Nigeria Police, and Department of State Services.

The Deep Blue Project aims to prevent illegal activities in the Nigerian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), enforce maritime regulations, enhance safety of lives at sea, and prevent illegal activities in the inland waterways. In February, the Federal Government added the Secure Anchorage Area (SAA), off the coast of Lagos, to the areas under the protection of the Deep Blue Project.

The project is designed with three categories of platforms to tackle maritime security issues on land, sea, and air. The land assets comprise the Command, Control, Communication, Computer, and Intelligence Centre (C4i) for intelligence gathering and data collection; 16 armoured vehicles for coastal patrol; and about 600 specially trained troops for interdiction, known as Maritime Security Unit. On air, there are two Special Mission Aircraft for surveillance of the EEZ, one of which was received May 12, with the second expected to arrive soon; three Special Mission Helicopters for search and rescue; and four Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The sea assets consist of two Special Mission Vessels and 17 Fast Interceptor Boats.

All the assets have been delivered, except one Special Mission Aircraft.

The Deep Blue Project assets would be deployed to prevent pipeline vandalism, oil theft, illegal bunkering, arms smuggling, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and illegal fishing. They would also be deployed for pollution prevention and control in the Nigerian maritime environment.

The project is in line with the country’s total spectrum maritime security strategy, anchored on four pillars, namely, situational awareness, response capability, law enforcement and local partnerships, and regional cooperation.

The Nigerian Oil & Gas Sector in the 1st Quarter of 2020: The Impact of oil price fluctuations on the Nigerian Economy

In the 4th quarter of 2019, Nigeria amended the Production Sharing Contract (PSC) Act to unlock the premium rights due to the Nigerian Government from crude oil produced under the PSC arrangement. The expected returns due to the Nigeria, a net oil exporter was expected to increase in 2020 with oil prices encouraging higher inflows...

Read more

The Nigerian Oil & Gas Sector in the 1st Quarter of 2020: The Impact of oil price fluctuations on the Nigerian Economy

In the 4th quarter of 2019, Nigeria amended the Production Sharing Contract (PSC) Act to unlock the premium rights due to the Nigerian Government from crude oil produced under the PSC arrangement. The expected returns due to the Nigeria, a net oil exporter was expected to increase in 2020 with oil prices encouraging higher inflows of export earnings into the economy of Nigeria. However, the first quarter of 2020 has witnessed fluctuations in the oil price representing the largest source of instability in exchange rates in Nigeria.

Nigeria’s 2020 Appropriation Act was initially based on crude oil production volume of 2.18 million barrels per day, with a $57 benchmark per barrel. The downward trajectory in oil prices was initially triggered by the disagreement between Saudi Arabia and Russia and then compounded by the economic slowdown due to measures taken across the world to combat the Covid19 pandemic. The result has been a dramatic drop in oil prices as evidenced by the April 15, 2020 price of Brent Crude (the international benchmark pricing for Nigeria’s Bonny light crude oil) at $27.69 per barrel.

OPEC has sought to address this situation with output cuts but experts predict that this will not be enough. Last week OPEC and its allies agreed to deeper output cuts in a bid to save declining oil prices. Following the deal, Nigeria’s Minister for Petroleum, Timipre Sylva, announced that the country will now be producing 1.412 million barrels per day, as against 1.829 million barrels per day. With this volume, if crude oil is sold at an average price of $25 bpd in April, then the country would be earning N13.41 billion per day as against the N17.29 billion that was earned prior to the cut.
The International Energy Agency’s projection is that global oil demand in April will be 29 million b/d lower than a year ago; down to a level last seen 25 years back (1995). This demonstrates that cuts in output by producers may not fully offset the near-term falls facing the market.

Nigeria is currently confronted with revenue generation concerns and faces a number of challenges in order to quickly address the revenue shortfall of the budget. This will have an effect on the exchange rates and the value of the Naira will be under pressure vis a vis international currencies including the dollar and pound sterling.
Equally, the government would still find it difficult to close the revenue gap with tax, as the commercial hub centre of the economy, Lagos, has been lockdown for about three weeks to control the spread of COVID-19. If the lockdown is prolonged for 2-3 months, 2020, the revenue and funding gap could be seriously compounded.
If the lock down is not prolonged, there is some light at the end of the tunnel and the industry opinion of experts and the IEA is that there is hope for a rebound in the second quarter of 2020. An excerpt from the IEA report reads as follows:

“Demand is expected to be 23.1 million b/d below year-ago levels. The recovery in 2020 will be gradual; in December demand will still be down 2.7 million b/d.
“If production does fall sharply, some oil goes into strategic stocks, and demand begins to recover, the second half of 2020 will see demand exceed supply. This will enable the market to start reducing the massive stock overhang that is building up in the first half of the year. Indeed, our current demand and supply estimates imply a stock draw of 4.7 million b/d in the second half.”

In the meantime, the global capital expenditure by exploration and production companies has been forecast to drop by about 32% to $335 billion in 2020. This will mark the lowest level since 13 years. Unfortunately, this will come with some negative implications as you can see in the quote below:

“This reduction of financial resources also undermines the ability of the oil industry to develop some of the technologies needed for clean energy transitions around the world.”

Nigeria’s Oil & Gas Sector in Review – 4th Quarter 2019 Deep Offshore and Inland Basin Production Sharing Contract (PSC) Amendment Bill Passes Into Law 2019

On Monday 4 November 2019, President Muhammadu Buhari signed the historic Deep Offshore and Inland Basin Production Sharing Contract (PSC) Amendment Bill into law. There is a consensus of opinions that the legislation promises to significantly increase Nigeria’s share of earnings earned from its oil wells offshore. The Act is seen a victory for the...

Read more

Nigeria’s Oil & Gas Sector in Review – 4th Quarter 2019 Deep Offshore and Inland Basin Production Sharing Contract (PSC) Amendment Bill Passes Into Law 2019

On Monday 4 November 2019, President Muhammadu Buhari signed the historic Deep Offshore and Inland Basin Production Sharing Contract (PSC) Amendment Bill into law. There is a consensus of opinions that the legislation promises to significantly increase Nigeria’s share of earnings earned from its oil wells offshore. The Act is seen a victory for the campaign for Tax Justice in the oil and gas sector.

The Deep Offshore and Inland Basin Production Sharing Contracts Act’s provisions of stipulate that the law shall be subject to review to ensure that if the price of crude oil at any time exceeds $20 per barrel, the share of the revenue to the Nigerian government shall be adjusted under the PSC.

In 2017, Dr. Ibe Kachikwu the then Nigerian Minister of State for Petroleum Resources disclosed that Nigeria had lost approximately $21 billion due to its failure to implement the premium element governing the country’s oil and gas production sharing contracts (PSCs) as provided under the Deep Offshore and Inland Basin Production Sharing Contracts Act. Under the Act, the Nigerian government was entitled once the price of crude oil exceeded $20 per barrel to exercise rights over a “premium element”, which would have been distributed in accordance with the PSCs between the government and IOCs under an agreed formula in a manner that the Nigeria would have derived more value for its oil.

In 2013, there was a notice to oil companies that we were going to do this, but the Nigerian government did not follow through in terms of going to the Federal Executive Council (FEC) the decision making body of the executive arm of the Nigerian federal government, to get approval. Due to the inertia of the Nigerian government in not taking the required steps in the past 20 years had cost a considerable amount, thus prompting the then Minister to seek the FEC’s approval in 2017 to amend Section 15 of the Act.

Accordingly, since 2017, the federal government initiated moves to amend the Deep Offshore Act, in order to increase the government’s revenue from crude oil sales when prices exceed $20 a barrel.
The Deep Offshore and Inland Basins PSC Act enacted on March 23, 1999, with its commencement backdated to January 1, 1993 to provide the fiscal framework for foreign investments in deep offshore and inland basin acreages in the oil and gas sector.

It was also targeted at addressing the challenges confronting the joint operating agreements (JOA), which paved the way for the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to become the concession holder while the international oil companies (IOCs) became the contractors.
Following the agreements entered into by NNPC with eight IOCs in 1993, the country was able to attract foreign investments running into billions of dollars to develop oil acreages located in deep waters offshore Nigeria.

Some of such oil fields include the 225,000 barrel per day (bpd) Bonga oil field operated by Shell, the 250,000bpd Agbami oil field operated by Chevron, and the 180,000bpd Usan oil field operated by Total. Others are the Total’s Egina field, which started production on 28 December 2018, Eni’s Zabazaba and Etan fields located in oil prospecting lease (OPL) 245 offshore Nigeria in the Gulf of Guinea.

The Zabazaba and Etan fields are estimated to hold a combined total of 560 million barrels of oil equivalent (Mboe).
The Niger delta of Nigeria is estimated to contain 34.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 93.8 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas reserves, is spread over an area of 300,000km². The world’s 12th biggest oil and gas resource. It lies in the Gulf of Guinea and is surrounded by the Cameroon volcanic line to the east and the Dahomey basin to the west.

The delta is estimated to contain 34.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 93.8 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas reserves and has a sediment volume of 500,000km³ and a sediment thickness exceeding 10km in the basin depocenter. The primary source rock in the delta is the Akata formation.

On Monday 4 November 2019, President Muhammadu Buhari signed the historic Deep Offshore and Inland Basin Production Sharing Contract (PSC) Amendment Bill into law.
The Deep Offshore and Inland Basin Production Sharing Contracts Act was last The provisions of the Act stipulate that the law shall be subject to review to ensure that if the price of crude oil at any time exceeds $20 per barrel, (even when prices were in triple digits decades after!) the share of the revenue to the Nigerian government shall be adjusted under the PSC.
There is a consensus of opinions that the legislation promises to significantly increase Nigeria’s share of earnings earned from its oil wells offshore. The Act is seen a victory for the campaign for Tax Justice in the oil and gas sector.

In view of the total losses of $21 billion due to the government’s failure to exercise its rights under the Act. It is noted that it would be difficult to recoup past losses, given that oil companies that were not paying the government a premium for sales over $20 a barrel were not breaking the law. However, attempts by the government to recoup money lost cannot be completely precluded. This is viewed by the Nigerian government as a necessary step towards greater transparency and accountability in the oil and gas sector as envisaged by the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB). It may well also speed up the passage of the PIB and herald the unbundling of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).

There are some concerns about the implications of the amended Deep Offshore and Inland basin Act, namely, that all PSC productions will now attract royalty based on combination of water depth and oil price and this will lead to some decline in investments. The amendment will end the incentive of 0% royalties from offshore production such as Agbami, Akpo, Bonga, Erha, Nigeria’s biggest producing fields.
However, the government is optimistic concerns about a decline in investments are overrated and that the amended Act will correct the revenue deficit the Nigerian government has suffered in the sector for a considerable period of time.

Big Wins! – Nigeria’s Oil and Gas Sector in Review – 2017

With crude oil prices remaining robust throughout 2017 and now reaching trading highs of $ 64-$65 per barrel, the international Oil Companies (IOCs) namely ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell Plc (the latter being slightly ahead of the former) are leading other IOCs in global operational profitability and flourishing under current global oil prices. In the...

Read more

Big Wins! – Nigeria’s Oil and Gas Sector in Review – 2017

With crude oil prices remaining robust throughout 2017 and now reaching trading highs of $ 64-$65 per barrel, the international Oil Companies (IOCs) namely ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell Plc (the latter being slightly ahead of the former) are leading other IOCs in global operational profitability and flourishing under current global oil prices.
In the same vein, the Nigerian oil industry seeks to re-position itself, having recovered from the low crude oil price volatility in 2016 punctuated by interruptions to key production sources arising from militant activity in the Niger Delta. The Nigerian government now seeks to attract more investment in the oil & gas sector, improve production activity, currently 1.85 million barrels per day (mbpd) and ensure that the oil sector continues to perform its traditional role of supporting the Nigerian economy.

The 2018 budget was presented to the Nigerian federal legislature on 7 November 2017. The budget proposal presented by the Minister of Budget and National Planning Mr. Udoma Udo Udoma provides that the government plans to fund the budget with N6.6 trillion (approx. $ 18.3 billion) in revenues from various sources particularly the oil and gas sector amongst which signature bonuses (funds paid by oil companies to the Federal Government upon their successful bid for oil blocks in the oil sector) will contribute 1.7% amounting to N112 billion (approx. $ 311m). Such signature bonuses arise from the planned marginal field bid round, in respect of which guidelines were released in September 2017. With 46 acreages on offer. No specific date has yet been fixed for this bid round and it is hoped that a process which has suffered several setbacks in recent years will finally be concluded in late 2017 or early 2018. The outcome of this bid round shall be an important litmus test of the current indigenous appetite for investment in the upstream oil and gas sector.

Further encouraging signs have come from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). The NNPC has stated, in endorsement of the 2018 budgetary projection, that the 2018 crude oil national production projection (for Joint Ventures, Modified Carry Arrangement or External Financing, Production Sharing Contracts, Independents, Marginal Fields and Service Contracts) that about 2,298,000 barrels per day is achievable and realistic in view of the renewed security in the Niger Delta. Such projections are based on price scenarios of $35 (low), $45 (medium – the benchmark used for the 2018 budget) and $55 (high)

This outlook is reassuring given the positive global economic growth and the improved compliance with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries’ (OPEC) current production cuts for 2017, which cap Nigeria’s crude oil production (excluding condensates) to 1.8mbpd. It however remains to be seen, how much of an impact, OPEC’s production caps on Nigeria will have on Nigeria’s 2018 budget projections.

The Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Dr. Ibe Kachikwu, has on the back of the budgetary projections and highlighted key aspects of the roadmap policy unveiled in 2016 by President Muhammadu Buhari titled ‘7 Big Wins’ in the oil and gas sector said that the government would begin the implementation of some fiscal policies to generate about $2 billion yearly in the short term and $9 billion in the long term.

The other big wins have been the delivery of zero fuel availability since 2015/2016; exiting the cash call system giving the multinational oil firms more belief in the need to invest in the country (investments which could be in excess of $ 15 billion). Examples of such investments are Agip and Shell’s Zabazaba Deepwater project and Shell’s Bonga extension project. Other big wins are the improved transparency in NNPC’s operations and deeper engagement and resultant stability in the Niger Delta region through the office of the Vice President, the Niger Delta Ministry, the security forces and the Presidency.

In 2018/2019, the government plans to rehabilitate the refineries and end or severely diminish the importation of refined petroleum products and reveal a package of fiscal policies, which will be subject to the Federal Executive Council approval and thereafter transmitted to the federal legislature for requisite legislative backing. The Minister of State for Petroleum Resources has predicted that this will expand federal government income in the short-term by over $2 billion a year and then on to over $9 billion in the long-term.

The federal legislature continues its work, commenced at the beginning of this year (2017) as regards ensure the passage into law of the entire aspects of the Petroleum Industry Governance Bill PIGB (a bill for the establishment of the institutions that will govern the Nigerian oil and gas sector). It is widely understood that the PIGB will need the strong support of the executive arm of the federal government to make it functional for the long-term stability of the oil industry.

To Appeal or Not to Appeal: That is the question

Appealability of National Industrial Court decisions on civil matters: the case of Skye bank Plc v. Victor Anaemem Iwu Before the recent Supreme Court decision in Skye Bank Plc v. Victor Anaemem Iwu (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt. 24) 1, the issue of whether the decision of the National Industrial Court (NIC) on civil matters outside...

Read more

To Appeal or Not to Appeal: That is the question

Appealability of National Industrial Court decisions on civil matters: the case of Skye bank Plc v. Victor Anaemem Iwu

Before the recent Supreme Court decision in Skye Bank Plc v. Victor Anaemem Iwu (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt. 24) 1, the issue of whether the decision of the National Industrial Court (NIC) on civil matters outside fundamental rights was appealable or not was sharply divided between two divergent decisions of the Court of Appeal. The two Divisions of the Court of Appeal interpreted the provisions of Sections 240, 241, 242, 243(2)- (4); 254C(5) and 254C(6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

The Ekiti Division of the Court of Appeal in four judgments: Local Government Service Commission, Ekiti State & Anor. v. Jegede (2013) LPELR – 21131 (CA); Local Government Service Commission, Ekiti State & Anor. v. Bamisaye (2013) LPELR – 20407(CA); Local Government Service Commission, Ekiti State & Anor. v. Olamiju (2-013) LPELR- 20409 (CA) and Local Government Service Commission, Ekiti State & Anor. v. Asubiojo (20130 LPELR – 20403 (CA), held that the decision of the NIC are appealable while the Lagos division of the Court of Appeal in Coca-Cola Nigeria Ltd v. Akinsanya (2013) 18 NWLR (1386) 225 and Lagos Sheraton Hotel & Towers v. HPSSA (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1426) 45, held that the decisions of the NIC are not appealable, other than decisions on fundamental rights and criminal matters.

The Appellant in Skye Bank Plc v. Victor Anaemem Iwu (supra) at the Court of Appeal faced the quagmire that the panel of Justices constituted to hear the appeal may concur with either the views of the Lagos Division or the Ekiti Division of the Court of Appeal and still leaves the issue not fully settled. It was therefore apposite and commendable that Appellant’s counsel filed an application seeking the Court of Appeal to state a case on the appealability or otherwise of the judgment of the NIC to the Supreme Court in view of the constitutional issues and substantial points of law involved.

The Court of Appeal granted the application and formulated three issues for determination by the Supreme Court namely:

The Court of Appeal granted the application and formulated three issues for determination by the Supreme Court namely:

“(1) Whether the Court of Appeal as an appellate court created by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) has the jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria to hear and determine all appeals arising from the decisions of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria?

(2) Whether there exists any constitutional provision which expressly divested the Court of Appeal of its appellate jurisdiction over all decisions on civil matters emanating from the National Industrial Court of Nigeria?

(3) Whether the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to hear civil appeals from the decisions of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria is limited to only questions of Fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court in a full panel of seven Justices out of which only one Justice gave a dissenting judgment, and after considering all the relevant laws including the organic law and the Third Alteration to the Constitution 2010, the Court of Appeal Act and Rules s establishing the Court of Appeal and the National Industrial Court as well as the various decided cases, led to rest the divergent views that held sway prior to 30 June 2017. The Supreme Court in an illuminating judgment held as follows:

“In all, then, on a holistic interpretation of sections 240 and 243(1) of the 1999, appeals lie from the National Industrial Court to the Court of Appeal, that is, all decisions of the trial court are appealable to the Court of Appeal: as of right in criminal cases – Section 254C (5) and (6) and fundamental rights cases –section 243(2); and with the leave of the Court of Appeal, in all other civil matters where the National Industrial Court has exercised its jurisdiction, section 240 read conjunctively with section 243(1) and (4).

The apex court therefore answered the questions posed above as follows:

(a) The Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction, to the exclusion of any other court in Nigeria, to hear and determine all appeals arising from the decisions of the National Industrial Court;
(b) no constitutional provisions, expressly, divested the said Court of Appeal of its appellate jurisdiction over all decisions on civil matters emanating from the National Industrial Court, and
(c) as a corollary, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear and determine civil appeals from the decision of the National Industrial Court is not limited, only to fundamental rights matters.”

We opine that the above decision of the Supreme Court has removed all barriers and assumptions that shrouded the issue of whether the judgment of the National Industrial Court is appealable or not and has stated in unequivocal terms that the decisions of the National Industrial Court on civil matters apart from fundamental rights are appealable but only with the leave of the Court of Appeal.

Review of Government Policy- Anti- Corruption and Financial Cases: Curbing inordinate delays and lawyers’ dilatoriness

President Muhammadu Buhari in his electioneering campaigns promised to stamp out graft in Nigeria and to this end, will set up special courts to speed up the trial of corruption cases. The President then sought the co-operation of the Judiciary in his administration’s fight against corruption and financial crimes in Nigeria.To redeem the battered image...

Read more

Review of Government Policy- Anti- Corruption and Financial Cases: Curbing inordinate delays and lawyers’ dilatoriness

President Muhammadu Buhari in his electioneering campaigns promised to stamp out graft in Nigeria and to this end, will set up special courts to speed up the trial of corruption cases. The President then sought the co-operation of the Judiciary in his administration’s fight against corruption and financial crimes in Nigeria.To redeem the battered image of the judiciary before the Nigerian public, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, GCON in his speech at the Special Session of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to mark the commencement of the 2017/2018 Legal Year, emphasised the need to avoid all forms of dilatoriness by lawyers in prosecution of corruption and financial crimes cases and/or determination by the Court.

Consequently, on 27 September 2017, the CJN directed the Heads of Courts in Nigeria to set up Special Courts to speedily hear and determine corruption and financial crimes cases and forward the comprehensive list to the Nigerian Judicial Council. The Heads of Courts are to designate one or two courts in their jurisdiction as Special Courts for the hearing and speedy determination of corruption and financial crimes cases and pegged the number of legal appearances for each party to five.

The CJN also announced major reforms in the criminal justice system to effectively monitor and enforce the new policy. The National Judicial Council (NJC) approved the setting up of an Anti-Corruption Cases Trial Monitoring Committee with the mandate to among other things ensure that “both Trial and Appellate Courts handling corruption and financial crime cases key into and abide by the renewed efforts at ridding our Country of the canker worm.” The CJN also directed all heads of courts to clamp down on lawyers who deploy delay tactics in criminal matters before them.

The Committee is made up of 16 members and chaired by Hon. Justice Suleiman Galadima, CFR, a retired justice of the Supreme Court. Other members of the Committee include:

1. Hon. Justice Kashim Zannah (OFR), Chief Judge, Borno State
2. Hon. Justice P.O. Nnadi, Chief Judge, Imo State
3. Hon. Justice Marshal Umukoro, Chief Judge Delta State
4. Hon. Justice M. L. Abimbola, Chief Judge, Oyo State
5. Mr. A.B Mahmoud OON, SAN, President, Nigerian Bar Association,
6. Chief Wole Olanipekun OFR SAN, Former NBA President
7. Mr. Olisa Agbakoba OON SAN, Former NBA President
8. Mr. J.B Daudu SAN, Former NBA President
9. Mr. Augustine Alegeh SAN, Former NBA President
10. Dr. Garba Tetengi SAN, Member, NJC
11. Mrs. R.I Inga, Member, NJC
12. Mrs. Hajara Yusuf Representative, Ministry of Justice
13. Alhaji Kabiru Alkali Mohammed, mni Representative, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN).
14 Olanrewaju Suraju Representative, Non-Governmental Organisations
15 Ahmed Gambo Saleh, Esq., Secretary, NJC – Secretary.

The Terms of Reference of the Committee include:

i). To monitor and regularly evaluate the progress and activities of courts designated to try corruption a financial/economic crime cases;
ii). Advise on Practice Directions for approval by the Chief Justice of Nigeria to be applicable in all such courts across the country with a view to eliminating procedural and administrative bottlenecks militating against speedy disposal of such cases;
iii). Advise on the trainings, re-trainings and other refresher programmes for Judges and staff of the designated courts aimed at enhancing their capacities to function effectively;
iv) Come up with an effective feedback mechanism from Heads of Courts to the Council on the activities and progress of cases before designated courts;

We hope that this Committee will swing into action and bring to bear the necessary expeditiousness, such that corruption and financial crimes cases and indeed all cases in court will be heard and determined expeditiously. This will in no small measure redeem the tarnished image and independence of some of our courts.

Unshackling the Power Sector- New Eligible Customer Regulations 2017

The Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) on Monday 6 November 2017 released the newly-approved eligible customers’ regulations and outlined the terms that would guide the direct purchase of electricity by end-users from power generation companies. In May 2017, the Minister of Power, Works and Housing, Babatunde Fashola, declared that eligible power consumers would be free...

Read more

Unshackling the Power Sector- New Eligible Customer Regulations 2017

The Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) on Monday 6 November 2017 released the newly-approved eligible customers’ regulations and outlined the terms that would guide the direct purchase of electricity by end-users from power generation companies.

In May 2017, the Minister of Power, Works and Housing, Babatunde Fashola, declared that eligible power consumers would be free to purchase electricity directly from the Generation Companies (GenCos).
These regulations have been opposed by the Distribution Companies (DisCos) however, NERC on Monday 6 November 2017 presented the approved terms to the Honourable Minister in Abuja, and announced that the 11 electricity distribution companies had been designated as suppliers of last resort in the trading framework of the new regulations.

OPEC has sought to address this situation with output cuts but experts predict that this will not be enough. Last week OPEC and its allies agreed to deeper output cuts in a bid to save declining oil prices. Following the deal, Nigeria’s Minister for Petroleum, Timipre Sylva, announced that the country will now be producing 1.412 million barrels per day, as against 1.829 million barrels per day. With this volume, if crude oil is sold at an average price of $25 bpd in April, then the country would be earning N13.41 billion per day as against the N17.29 billion that was earned prior to the cut.
The International Energy Agency’s projection is that global oil demand in April will be 29 million b/d lower than a year ago; down to a level last seen 25 years back (1995). This demonstrates that cuts in output by producers may not fully offset the near-term falls facing the market.

The NERC explained that the regulations were a product of extensive consultations with relevant stakeholders in Lagos, Kano, Yola, Jos, Port Harcourt, Enugu and Abuja. The objective of the regulations was to permit high end-customers the freedom to purchase power directly from the GenCos and as a result, the DisCos may eventually lose a good number of their high demand customers and become standby suppliers of electricity to eligible customers, where such consumers’ contract suppliers fail to meet up with the required supply.

Time will tell the effects that these regulations will have on the industry. What is clear is that the new regulations will break the monopoly DisCos currently have on distribution of Power and this will inevitably create more competition and drive prices down.

Brightening Lights in the Nigerian Power Sector: But How Much Brighter Can They Get?

The major trend witnessed in the Nigerian Energy and Utilities sector over the last 12- 18 months is increased government intervention through policy and regulation. There has been a focus on strong market regulation and a cost reflective tariff system, as evidenced in the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (“NERC”) new electricity tariff, called the Multi-Year...

Read more

Brightening Lights in the Nigerian Power Sector: But How Much Brighter Can They Get?

The major trend witnessed in the Nigerian Energy and Utilities sector over the last 12- 18 months is increased government intervention through policy and regulation. There has been a focus on strong market regulation and a cost reflective tariff system, as evidenced in the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (“NERC”) new electricity tariff, called the Multi-Year Tariff Order (MYTO 2015) effective from February 1, 2016. The MYTO 2015 eliminates fixed charges and prescribes a robust mechanism which ensures that electricity distribution companies fully meter their consumers and eliminate baseless billing within one year.

Improvements in the performance of the Nigerian power sector in the past 2 years have dramatically increased power delivery by 35% and have bought breathing space for major reforms required to attract the investment needed to transform Nigeria’s power sector. Nigerian national power supply has reached new peaks with a daily average of 4,000 MW being achieved with a significant decrease in major blackouts. The improved service delivery in power has produced savings to Nigeria estimated by industry and infrastructure experts as worth over $1.2bn in a full year.

Nevertheless, the 4,000MW now being generated for Nigeria’s population of 180 million is grossly inadequate. In contrast, Brazil generates 100,000MW of grid-based power for 201 million and South Africa generates 40,000MW for 50 million.

Annual public sector investment averaging US$2bn between 2006-2009 leading to only moderate increases in power supply resulted in the Nigerian Government taking the logical decision to privatise the bulk of its power. This culminated in the execution of Share Sale Agreements and Concession Agreements, signifying the hand-over of power sector assets to 14 Preferred Bidders for 15 of the 17 Companies created out of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria on 21 February, 2013.

The current benefits are the outcome of the establishment in 2010 by the Nigerian government of a Power Programme Support Unit (PPSU) in collaboration with and management by the DFID-funded Nigeria Infrastructure Advisory Facility (NIAF), which is managed by Adam Smith International. The PPSU’s mandate was the rehabilitation of under-performing assets, adding more generating and transmission capacity to the grid, as well as stabilising the network by reducing the alarming number of system collapses. This resulted in the development of a comprehensive rehabilitation plan, with over 10,000 lines of activity, involving repairs and upgrades on plant and equipment across Nigeria, some of which had not been adequately maintained for decades.

However, with average annual per capita power consumption at only 155 kWh, Nigeria ranks amongst the lowest in the world. In contrast to its status as a leading global oil producer. Nigeria’s per capita electricity consumption is 7% of Brazil’s and 3% of South Africa’s. At the same time, at least 50% of Nigerian households have no connection whatsoever to the grid. Self-generation (diesel or petrol generators) in Nigeria is estimated to be 6,000MW.

According to DFID-NIAF estimates, Nigerians and the Nigerian economy pay unduly for the power gap in demand and supply. The poor currently pay more than N80 ($0.38)/kWh burning candles and kerosene, whereas manufacturers pay in excess of N60 ($0.28)/kWh on diesel generation. Meanwhile, everyone else who can afford it pays around N50-70 ($0.24-0.33)/kWh for self-generation. By contrast, grid power, if available, costs between N18 and N23/kWh.

The absence of adequate power is the most significant barrier to economic growth in Nigeria. If the current power situation continues as is until 2020, the Nigerian government estimates that some $97 bn (US dollars) in GDP would be lost every year.

The Nigeria Mining Roadmap: Relaunching the Nigerian Mining Sector

In September 2016, the Nigerian government through its Federal Executive Council (FEC) finally adopted the 103 paged “Roadmap for the Development of the Solid Minerals Sector.” This concluded a process which commenced on March 1, 2016 when a 16 man Committee on the Roadmap for the Development of the Solid Minerals Sector was empaneled by...

Read more

The Nigeria Mining Roadmap: Relaunching the Nigerian Mining Sector

In September 2016, the Nigerian government through its Federal Executive Council (FEC) finally adopted the 103 paged “Roadmap for the Development of the Solid Minerals Sector.” This concluded a process which commenced on March 1, 2016 when a 16 man Committee on the Roadmap for the Development of the Solid Minerals Sector was empaneled by the Minister of Solid Minerals, Dr. Kayode Fayemi to formulate a course to stimulate the rapid growth of the sector. The Ministerial Committee concluded its deliberations on March 31 2016 and its recommendations were subjected to review by other stakeholders and equally circulated for input to all Governors of the 36 states in Nigeria including the FCT.

The 2016 Roadmap represents the latest mining sector initiative, since the 2012 Roadmap and the passage of the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act (2007) and Nigerian Mineral and Metals Policy (2008), which amongst other things, created a modern Mining Cadastral Office, refined the tax code and expanded the airborne mapping of the country to sharpen knowledge of the mineral endowments.

The 2016 Roadmap is based on the identification of the current status and hindrances to the development of the mineral resources of Nigeria and proposes solutions to overcome such barriers. It prioritises activities for implementation and provides the time frame for all activities. It creates scenarios and models for successful implementation and monitoring of activities, while also developing a consensus strategy for the buy-in of all stakeholders.

The 2016 Roadmap by providing policy certainty, addresses several sector challenges, which are of major concern to industry participants, stakeholders, institutions and other enablers in the sector, It address challenges such as infrastructure, governance, fiscal incentives and geoscience, particularly the weak mechanisms for gathering, disseminating and archiving critical geological data required by investors and policy makers.

The 2016 Roadmap recommends a set of 8 critical levers for success that the government can put in place to improve the ecosystem for the minerals and mining sector were recommended. These are: i) Integrated Strategy, Proactively Communicated ii) Investor Friendly Regulatory Environment iii) Coordinated Infrastructure Investments iv) Community Partnership v) Investment Funding vi) Institutional Reform: vii) Geoscientific Value Add viii) Mining as Development Catalyst.

The Committee also reviewed how other countries such as Guinea Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Cameroon have used similar levers to improve the competitiveness of their mining sector. It therefore incorporated into the 2016 Roadmap, competitive investor incentives in Nigeria when compared with several other major mining countries, in Africa including a more favourable tax regime and royalties.

A major distinguishing feature between the 2016 Roadmap and its predecessor, the 2012 Roadmap, is the determination of the government to set up an independent regulatory agency, different from the ministry, which has been serving mainly as a facilitator for the mining industry. To date, the Ministry has doubled as both facilitor for business opportunities in the industry and regulator, giving rise to conflicts of regulatory functions.

The new regulatory agency is to be made up of the Inspectorate and Environmental Compliance departments of the ministry. The Artisans and Small Scale units of the ministry would also form part of the regulatory agency.

The 2016 Roadmap also emphasises partnership between the Federal and State governments together with the overlapping of functions between the Federal Ministry of Mines and Steel Development and the various state Ministries for Mines.

A copy of the Roadmap is available via the following link: http://www.minesandsteel.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Nigeria_Mining_Growth_Roadmap_Final.pdf

Nigerian Infrastructure: The Chinese Are Coming!

In the wake of Nigeria’s economic recession and the need to provide energy and infrastructure for its teeming population, the Nigerian Government has decided to look past its traditional Western trading partners and look East, more specifically China for trade and investment. This also coincides with China’s commitment to establish a strong trade and economic...

Read more

Nigerian Infrastructure: The Chinese Are Coming!

In the wake of Nigeria’s economic recession and the need to provide energy and infrastructure for its teeming population, the Nigerian Government has decided to look past its traditional Western trading partners and look East, more specifically China for trade and investment. This also coincides with China’s commitment to establish a strong trade and economic presence in Africa and invest heavily in the continent.

Nigeria is reported to require US$166 billion to provide energy and infrastructure for its growing population. According to the African Development Bank, Nigeria has an infrastructure deficit of US$300 billion. In fact, overall infrastructure spending (and in turn demand for financing) in Nigeria is expected to grow from US$23 billion in 2013 to US$77 billion in 2025.

With this is view, and the reluctance of Nigeria to increase its’ debt profile to Western Institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, economic, technical, trade and investment partnerships with other economic giants like China have become imperative. Infrastructure funding from China is hoped will bridge the funding gap (caused by dwindling oil prices and dollar scarcity) and support businesses which now need competitive, cheaper and longer term financing to fund infrastructure and other related projects in Nigeria.

Chinese Infrastructure Investments

Nigeria has secured a US$6 billion loan commitment from China to fund infrastructure projects in Nigeria. The Nigerian government can access this credit facility by identifying and putting forward the relevant projects to the Chinese presumably through a series of tranches in respect of each identified project.

Furthermore, it was reported in April this year that Nigeria and China have entered a currency swap deal. The swap deal is designed to facilitate the settlement of Nigeria-China trade by removing the dollar from transactions and trading instead in yuan, whilst also boosting imports from China, whose exports represent some 80 per cent of the total bilateral trade volume. This deal will also enable Nigeria to diversify its foreign reserves It is hoped that this in turn should reduce the demand for dollars on the Central Bank of Nigeria and improve the value of the Naira.

There have also been various agreements on infrastructure agreements between Nigeria and China. They include:

a. North South Power Company Limited and Sino Hydro Corporation Limited (“SCL”) signing an agreement valued at US$478 million dollars for the construction of a 300MW solar power in Niger State;

b. Granite and Marble Nigeria Limited and Shanghai Shibang signing an agreement valued at US$55 million for the construction and equipping of a granite mining plant;

c. Infrastructure Bank of Nigeria and SCL signing an agreement for the construction of a greenfield expressway for Abuja-Ibadan-Lagos valued at US$1 billion;

d. the signing of a US$2.5 billion agreement for the development of the Lagos Metro Rail Transit Red Line project in Lagos State;

e. the signing of a US$1 billion facility for the establishment of a hi-tech industrial park in Ogun-Guangdong Free Trade Zone in Ogun State.

There are also significant investments in the energy sector as well. In June 2016, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) arranged a road show in China to source for investments in the Oil and Gas sector resulting in the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between NNPC and several Chinese counterparties worth approximately US$80 billion.

Chinese Infrastructure Investment is being driven by “cheaper financing models”. The Chinese through their financial institutions such as the ICBC export credit agencies (like China Exim Bank) and development finance institutions like China Development Bank and China-Africa Development Fund part finance these specified infrastructural projects on the condition that the contractor services are Chinese (mostly state-owned companies). The contract binding the Chinese Contractor and the borrower government is the Engineering, Procurement and Construction Contract (EPC Contract). These loans like most other external loans are guaranteed by a Sovereign Guarantee provided by the Nigerian Ministry of Finance and security is taken, where applicable, over the commodity offtake arrangements.

The implication of this arrangement is that the Nigerian government is bound to execute the contract to which the loan was obtained for. This will go a long way to curb “white elephant” projects and corruption which has long plagued Nigeria. However, the Chinese government benefits massively as Chinese labour, machinery and expertise is exported to other developing countries thereby improving their Gross Domestic Product(GDP).

The Nigerian Economy: 2016 Third Quarter Year Review – Budget and Currency Exchange Rates

The 2016 Nigerian budget’s expectation of earnings of N820 Billion ($4 Billion) from oil exports in 2016 was based on a production assumption of 2.2 million b/d and a benchmark price of $38/barrel. The N 6.07 trillion ($30.1 Billion) budget proposal for 2016 was predicated on the said benchmark, at the then prevailing official currency...

Read more

The Nigerian Economy: 2016 Third Quarter Year Review – Budget and Currency Exchange Rates

The 2016 Nigerian budget’s expectation of earnings of N820 Billion ($4 Billion) from oil exports in 2016 was based on a production assumption of 2.2 million b/d and a benchmark price of $38/barrel. The N 6.07 trillion ($30.1 Billion) budget proposal for 2016 was predicated on the said benchmark, at the then prevailing official currency exchange rate of N197 – $ 1.

Global prices of crude oil have risen to circa $ 50/barrel from an all-time low in January 2016 of $ 27.10/barrel for Brent crude (the bench mark price for Nigerian crude) and well above budgetary benchmark of $ 38/barrel and thus potentially increasing revenue from oil exports, well above the aforesaid budgetary estimate.

However, the inability of crude oil production to meet daily production targets for prolonged periods in 2016, due to shut downs arising from pipeline vandalism and sabotage of oil infrastructure through militant activities has resulted in an extreme drop in oil revenue earnings. In consequence of this, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) decided to review its longstanding fixed exchange rate regime in order to reduce the severe pressures on Nigeria’s external reserves, alleviate the foreign exchange supply crisis and address the considerable gap between the official and the unofficial (real market) exchange rate.

The CBN on May 24 2016 announced a flexible exchange rate regime aimed at making foreign currencies more accessible. With this action, the CBN nullified the official exchange rate regime of N197/dollar. By this development, the interbank foreign exchange market, which had been dormant for some time, was revitalised on an unrestricted exchange rate basis, while the Bureaux de Change, (BDC), would continue their operations, thus creating multiple exchange windows. Although the CBN would not permit the BDCs to purchase dollars from the interbank market. The markets opened in June 2016 with the flexible official rate at $1 – N280 and the unofficial rate at $1 – N340.

The technical details of the new system are as follows:
A. Market moving to single market through inter-bank via a Reuters / FMDQ order matching system with 10 primary dealers (two-way quote mechanism) and other secondary dealers.

 

NB. FMDQ -The Financial Markets Dealers Association, an association of the treasurers of banks and discount houses in Nigeria, commenced the project to create a self-regulatory organisation (SRO) in 2009 with the primary purpose of deepening the inter-bank OTC market trading in various securities and products. Thereafter the association promoted the formation of FMDQ OTC PLC. The company was licensed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, as a self- regulatory organisation, SRO, to organise and provide oversight on the Over-the-Counter, OTC, market in the Nigerian capital market in November 2012)

Primary dealers (authorised dealers i.e. the licensed banks) to operate the inter-bank market. CBN may intervene from time to time.

B. Primary dealers (authorised dealers i.e. the licensed banks) to operate the inter-bank market. CBN may intervene from time to time.

C. Proceeds of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) shall be purchased by authorised dealers at the daily inter-bank rates.

D. Non-oil exporters are allowed unfettered access to export proceeds via the interbank rates

E. 41 items formerly constrained by CBN will still not be eligible for trade on interbank

F. To enhance liquidity, CBN may offer long dated 6 – 12 months’ forwards to authorised dealers. Forwards must be traded backed with no authorised spreads

 

G. A new product was introduced, namely the authorised NGN futures on the FMDQ OTC – which will allow non-standardised amounts, no fixed dates or tenors allowing businesses to hedge. Futures will be NGN settled.

It was expected that this would result in a drop and eventually herald the demise of the unofficial (real market) rate as anyone and everyone would be able to buy dollars at any bank or with authorised dealers at a market determined price.

Some volatility was anticipated but It was anticipated that over time, investors and businesses who were reluctant to import dollars into Nigeria would be encouraged to bring in their forex at a price they believe is market determined. That this would enhance liquidity over time.

The volatility did however exceed expectations as the rates fell sharply in the wake of the announcement between June – September 2016. There remains an appreciable gap between the official and the floating (official) rates and the unofficial rates. This has been a major concern for Nigerians and foreign investors alike and confidence in the Naira has been severely dented with the official flexible rate falling sharply to its currently prevailing rate at $1 – N315.25 and the unofficial rate at $1 – N468 on 14/10/2016.

However, it must be said that in many countries where a full float was launched, the value of the home country’s currency did plummet woefully before it found its level. However, the rates between the inter-bank market and the parallel market did narrow and although, this has not yet happened appreciably in Nigeria, economic experts expect that it will also replicate in Nigeria.

The CBN Governor has not dwelt on the controls currently in place such as limits to withdrawals of dollars from your bank domiciliary accounts or spending limits when abroad. However, it is expected that the severe limits will be removed in due time as the market becomes more liquid.

Nigerian Port Concessioning, 10 years of Port Reforms

In 2016, the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) took stock of the 10th anniversary of Port reforms in Nigeria amid assurances by the Minister of Transport, Mr. Rotimi Amaechi, that a comprehensive audit of the concessionaires’ operations would soon be carried out to know whether to review their agreement with NPA, especially those whose tenure expires...

Read more

Nigerian Port Concessioning, 10 years of Port Reforms

In 2016, the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) took stock of the 10th anniversary of Port reforms in Nigeria amid assurances by the Minister of Transport, Mr. Rotimi Amaechi, that a comprehensive audit of the concessionaires’ operations would soon be carried out to know whether to review their agreement with NPA, especially those whose tenure expires this year.

The Nigerian economy accounts for about 70% of all seaborne trade in the West African sub-region and yet, the system of seaports, established in 1921, had not undergone any systematic process of re-development until the concession programme of port reforms, which commenced in 2000 and was concluded in 2006.

The concessioning programme with concession terms ranging from 10-25 years brought into existence the current system of private port operators in Nigeria, namely Lagos Port with 7 concessionaires, Lagos Tin Can Island Port with 4 concessionaires, Rivers Port (Port Harcourt) with 2 concessionaires, Delta Port Complex with 5 concessionaires, Onne Ports (Federal Lighter Terminal & Federal Ocean Terminal) with 4 concessionaires, Calabar Port with 3 concessionaires.

The concession system has resulted in compliance with international standards, particularly the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code). Security compliance bench-marking to international regulations and elimination of a multiplicity of poorly coordinated federal law enforcement and security operatives, has also served to curb the incursions of unauthorised personnel within the port; along with the several vices long associated with the Nigerian ports, namely, pilferage, bribery and unscrupulous labour and stevedoring practices (including excessive charging). Additionally, plant and equipment inefficiencies and inadequacies have been minimized.

Significant gains have been made as a result of the concessioning such as: shortened turn-around time for ships; significant reduction of costs, seaport congestion, demurrage, overtime cargo and complaints of untraceable or missing cargoes; the rehabilitation/replacement of cargo-handling plants and equipment owned by the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) which were hitherto mostly unserviceable.

Nevertheless, it hasn’t been all smooth sailing, with concessionaires, who spoke under the aegis of the Seaport Terminal Operators Association of Nigeria (STOAN) in commemoration of 8 years of port reforms in 2014, cited ills affecting the effective and efficient running of the nation’s seaports to include inadequate power supply and incessant removal of management of government agencies. Others are arbitrary arrest of vessels at berth and attendant consequences, friction among maritime statutory agencies due to overlapping functions and lack of national carrier capacity for the United Nation Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 40:40:20 liner code.

STOAN have also recently cited, further challenges in need of attention, namely, inadequate provision of pilotage facilities, which reduces berth occupancy and utility rate; irregular sweeping of the Harbour bed, thus reducing draft and endangering vessels berthing; insecurity of vessels at the anchorage and water front of the Harbours and inconsistent cargo reception and release processes in the terminal together with associated delays.

Infrastructure Investment and the Diversification of the Nigerian Economy in 2016

Firm announced as Legal Advisors to Rendeavour Lagos Project F.O. Akinrele & Co has been appointed by Rendeavour, Africa’s leading urban developer, to provide comprehensive legal structuring and infrastructure advice to the Rendeavour Lagos Project. The Rendeavour Lagos Project is a major infrastructural undertaking in Lagos State and falling within a core practice area of...

Read more

Infrastructure Investment and the Diversification of the Nigerian Economy in 2016

Firm announced as Legal Advisors to Rendeavour Lagos Project

F.O. Akinrele & Co has been appointed by Rendeavour, Africa’s leading urban developer, to provide comprehensive legal structuring and infrastructure advice to the Rendeavour Lagos Project.

The Rendeavour Lagos Project is a major infrastructural undertaking in Lagos State and falling within a core practice area of the firm. The Rendeavour Lagos Project involves a landmark mixed use land development scheme on 200 hectares of land in the north-west quadrant of the Lekki Free Trade Zone (“LFTZ”) in Lagos State, Nigeria. This is being executed via a Public-Private Partnership (“PPP”) joint venture with the Lagos State Government (“LASG”).

F.O. Akinrele & Co’s advisory work is multifaceted and includes negotiation of land rights and title; generation and evaluation of interrelated project documentation and regulation, structuring of investment vehicles including special purpose vehicles (SPVs), joint ventures (JVs) and public private partnerships (PPPs).

The Nigerian Petroleum Sector 2016 Third Quarter Year Review

In our 2016 third quarter year review, we examine specific challenges confronting the Nigerian oil and gas sector as it continues to be affected by global externalities in 2016. This year, the Nigerian petroleum sector continued to confront the downturn in global crude oil prices since the third quarter of 2014. The resultant slowdown in...

Read more

The Nigerian Petroleum Sector 2016 Third Quarter Year Review

In our 2016 third quarter year review, we examine specific challenges confronting the Nigerian oil and gas sector as it continues to be affected by global externalities in 2016.

This year, the Nigerian petroleum sector continued to confront the downturn in global crude oil prices since the third quarter of 2014. The resultant slowdown in upstream exploration funding and investment is currently having an impact on oil well exploration and developmental programs. Equally, the power sector has had to confront interrelated challenges mostly emanating from supply shortages and gas pricing, the preferred fuel for power.

As NNPC has undergone much-welcomed restructuring in 2016 and Nigeria, in its capacity as an OPEC member continues to engage with fellow OPEC members in addressing global crude oil pricing; industry experts predict that funding and investment in the Nigerian petroleum sector will be positively influenced in the medium to long term if also accompanied by regulatory certainty and reform.

However, the short-term key existential and overriding challenge is militant activity. Since February 2016, midstream infrastructure facilities have come under incessant attack and vandalism by the new militants in the Niger Delta, triggering force majeure on production streams, bringing Nigeria’s production down to 1.2m-1.6m barrels per day for prolonged periods from the 2016 budget production estimate of 2.2m barrels per day and reducing the crude oil feed stock to local refineries.

The former government (2011-2015) had despite the news of continued pipeline vandalism, engaged in a militant amnesty programme substantially reducing the disruptions to industry facilities and enabling production to go back up to previous peaks of approximately 2.5 million barrels per day. Nevertheless, the gains of the amnesty were undermined by the revelation in 2013 that crude oil theft was costing Nigeria between 150,000-400,000 barrels per day.

The present government now seeks to re-evaluate the militant amnesty programme and address key Niger Delta security and environmental remediation issues through the establishment of a Joint (Army-Navy-Airforce) Task Force and the inauguration of the $1 billion Ogoni fund in February 2016 for the environmental restoration of Ogoni lands. The NNPC is also strengthening its collaborations with the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) to better protect its oil installations/pipelines in the country. In NNPC’s monthly financial and operations reports since September 2015, it has prioritised pipeline security reforms that would ensure reduction in crude oil theft as well as address the loss of other petroleum products.

To date, the NNPC continues to strive to fulfil the mission statement in its monthly report for September 2015 that “A comprehensive reform of the pipeline security situation will unlock several industry upsides, including improved upstream oil production due to reduced pipeline disruptions, improved refinery utilisation due to increased crude oil feed from restored pipelines, and reduction of crude/product losses”.

Joachim Okere Is Appointed Partner

Joachim Okere is appointed Partner (Litigation and Dispute Resolution Practice Group). He joins longstanding Partners, Mr. Adamu Usman (Partner and Head of Banking & Capital Markets and Corporate Practice Group) and Mr. OlumideAju (Partner, Litigation and Dispute Resolution, Practice Group).

Read more

Joachim Okere Is Appointed Partner

Joachim Okere is appointed Partner (Litigation and Dispute Resolution Practice Group). He joins longstanding Partners, Mr. Adamu Usman (Partner and Head of Banking & Capital Markets and Corporate Practice Group) and Mr. OlumideAju (Partner, Litigation and Dispute Resolution, Practice Group).

Federal Government & States Over Sovereign Wealth Fund

The decision of the Federal Government of Nigeria to establish a National Sovereign Wealth Fund (NSWF) has been greeted with divergent commentaries from various quarters especially from State governments as well as financial and social commentators. Already a bill for the establishment of the Nigerian National Sovereign Wealth Fund has been sent to the Legislative...

Read more

Federal Government & States Over Sovereign Wealth Fund

The decision of the Federal Government of Nigeria to establish a National Sovereign Wealth Fund (NSWF) has been greeted with divergent commentaries from various quarters especially from State governments as well as financial and social commentators.

Already a bill for the establishment of the Nigerian National Sovereign Wealth Fund has been sent to the Legislative arm of government as an executive sponsored bill while a seed capital of one billion US Dollars ($1 billion) has been proposed and set aside for the commencement of the Fund.

SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUND

A Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) is an investment fund owned by a sovereign state/nation with the mandate to invest in financial assets such as stocks, bonds, precious metals, property and other financial instruments. However, the objectives might include providing liquidity stabilization funds as well as the funding of vital economic infrastructure projects within the sovereign state. The structure and scope of investments in a sovereign wealth fund generally depend on the circumstances of each nation as well as the enabling law however Sovereign wealth funds usually have long-term investment focus. The need for the SWF is that countries through the SWF diversify their revenue streams by devoting a portion of its reserves to an SWF that invests in the types of assets which act as shields against systemic risk, and in the case of Nigeria, against oil related risk.

SOURCE OF FUNDING AND LEGAL ISSUES ARISING (The Nigerian Story)

In view of the seed capital of one billion US Dollars ($1 billion) from the ‘Excess Crude Account, Governors of the 36 States of the Federation commenced an action against the Federal Government before the Supreme Court (Nigeria’s Apex court) over plans to transfer $1 billion from the “Excess Crude Account” to a new a new account to be known as the “Sovereign Wealth Fund.

A seven-man panel of the court, headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, has now assumed jurisdiction of the legal dispute following a breakdown of an out-of-court mediation between the parties. Earlier on, the Federal Government had approached the court (at the commencement of the suit) praying that the parties be allowed to explore amicable resolution of the case through negotiation.

The plaintiffs in their consolidated suit, had sought preservative orders of the court restraining the Federal Government from making any withdrawals howsoever from the account styled the “Excess Crude Account” (or any account replacing same by any name howsoever) pending the hearing and determination of a substantive suit. They further urged the court to order that all sums standing to the credit of the said “Excess Crude Account”, (or any account replacing same by any name howsoever) be paid into court or be otherwise secured as the court may deem fit pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

It appears that the substance of the disagreement is not with the setting up of the fund, but with the funding from the ‘excess crude account’ which invariably will deplete their monthly allocations from the Federation accounts.
At the last sitting of the court, the case could not progress as the court was indisposed. It remains to be seen what the outcome will ultimately be.