Connect with us

News and Report

HOW TUNDE AYENI RAN INTO MONUMENTAL DEBT………

Published

on

*****How He Secured A Multi-Billion Naira Loan To Finance The Revival Of Moribund Government-Owned NITEL and Yola Disco

*****+ How government’s refusal to honor contractual agreements ran him into monumental debt

It wouldn’t be hyperbolic to say that Dr. Tunde Ayeni has a patriot’s heart and the soul of a revolutionary. This is to assert the fidelity and stoic perseverance of the genius within the footholds of power and a troubled oil sector.

Yes, despite his exit from Skye Bank, where he served as chairman, the cascade of blows against the successful lawyer turned business magnate has neither softened nor ceased.

At the moment, Ayeni is battling tooth and nail to save his most audacious investment, Ntel, from some powerful forces decidedly hell-bent on taking over the telecoms company and probably messing him up.

A consortium run by Ayeni, NATCOM Telecommunications, bought over the moribund national telecoms company, NITEL, and its mobile subsidiary, MTEL, from the Federal Government in 2014 and transformed it to Ntel.

Within a year of operations, Ntel has emerged a force to be reckoned with in the very competitive telecommunications sector, introducing the most sophisticated 4G service to Nigerians, while delivering superfast call connect times, crystal clear voice-over-LTE and high-speed Internet access. No sooner had Ntel introduced these innovative services that its problems began.

In the last one week, Ayeni has come under a barrage of media onslaughts, bordering on his stewardship at Skye Bank Plc., essentially due to the multi-billion naira loan he secured to finance the revival of NITEL.

Prior to the take-off of the Global System of Mobile Communications, GSM, in Nigeria in 2001, the services of the national telecommunications carrier had been spasmodic at best. In spite of successive administration’s efforts to revive it, nothing worked, thus consigning NITEL to the dustbin or so, until NATCOM came through in 2014.

According to a retired Director in the old Ministry of Communications Technology which oversaw the bid for NITEL, “It is quite sad how in Nigeria we dig our own grave and yet cry that we are not making progress. I just saw an online medium publish some grave allegations about Tunde Ayeni and his stewardship in Skye Bank.

“While I do agree that officeholders should be accountable for their actions, I wonder what the real intent of the government or whoever is behind that story is. Having petitioned the Presidency, why hastily bring the same allegations to the media?” He wondered whether the loan was unilaterally obtained in such a big bank or it went through due process.

“Now, who approved the loan? If the bank did not find the business proposal worthwhile, why approve the loan in the first place? Could these alleged financial losses running into almost N300bn as stated by the bank possibly have been accumulated in just over two years of Ayeni’s chairmanship because he only became chairman in 2013?

How much was the total deposits base of the bank during the over two years that one chairman would incur such expenses in so short a time? Why single Ayeni out of the three chairmen when Alhaji Musiliu Smith and Mrs (Moronkeji) Onasanya are still alive?”

Tunde and his partners borrowed money from the bank to buy Yola Electricity Distribution Company, but unfortunately for them, because of terrorist attacks, they declared a force majeure. Following the declaration of a force majeure by Integrated Energy Distribution and Marketing Company, the core investor in the Yola Electricity Distribution Company, the Federal Government took over the beleaguered power firm.

Consequently, the Federal Ministry of Power took over the management and control of the electricity distribution company since 2015. The Federal Government promised to pay back Integrated Energy Distribution Company $180 million since 2015, an agreement that the government has not fulfilled to date. The government has taken Yola Disco from the core investor and has yet to refund (the investor) the money used to acquire the asset.

The Yola Disco is running even as you read, and the Federal Government is even planning to sell it. Ayeni and his partners are paying back the huge loan to the bank with a huge interest. Meanwhile, it’s the same government that owes Integrated Energy Distribution Company such a humongous amount of money that is perpetrating cynical witch-hunts against them. Isn’t it ridiculous?

Obviously, the source also said, “The intent of this is either to conduct a media trial and convict the person (given Nigerians’ general phobia of not wanting to be in the press), or to pre-empt the President and blackmail him to act in a particular manner. Or better still, it may be to achieve a sinister motive of discrediting the man in the eyes of potential partners so as to make him a commercial outcast and ultimately overrun his business. Otherwise, how do you explain this action?

However, that electricity supply in Nigeria is still a spasmodic flourish, a yo-yo at best, is fairly and squarely the missteps and myopia of former President Goodluck Jonathan. This is the unanimous assertion of the investors behind Distribution Companies, DISCOs, who are the providers of last mile services in the electricity supply value chain.

Alas, at the time of the acquisition of the unbundled companies, core investors paid $2.238 billion which they sourced at N150 to the dollar. Two years later, dollar oscillated between N370 and N400, an investment-debilitating increase. This has plunged many of the investors into harrowing webs of debts.

Many have lost their assets and savings in the process. Life could not be more difficult for genuine, patriotic Nigerians who saw an opportunity to bail their fellow countrymen out of the cauldron of darkness but got frustrated by the system.

Now, their migraine does not end there; back then, the Federal Government promised to invest about $7 billion to revamp the old, obsolete networks; maintenance of network equipment; investment in trained manpower and customer data; increase meter penetration; and resolve health, safety and environmental issues.

All these have remained typical Nigerian politicians’ promises, empty and vainglorious. To compound the problems of the investors since the conclusion of the privatisation process, they are now faced with huge operational challenges, clearly visible in their operations and service delivery; lack of sufficient energy supply from the national grid; and a near absence of investments due to poor revenues, inadequate tariffs and external funding constraints.

According to the Executive Director, Association of Nigerian Electricity Distributors, the umbrella body for the DISCOs, Sunday Oduntan, “In that agreement, there is a list of what the Federal Government was going to do and what we as operators, the DISCOs, GENCOs and investors are to do. But unfortunately, the government reneged on all its obligations and promises.

“And those things that the government offered to do were essentially preconditions meaning ‘if I do this, you will do that. So, if I don’t do this, you will not be able to do that.’ An example is the issue of tariffs. From day one, the term they used was cost-reflective tariff. The simple meaning of that is what can be called the appropriate pricing of products. Tariff is about price and electricity is the product.”

Captain Idahosa Okunbo, a businessman, philantropist and investor extraordinaire, said, “The Federal Government has not met most of the conditions under which we should operate as a distribution company, and the best thing that can happen today to us or to me is for the government to take back the assets and pay us back our money.

“We are paying the loan we took to acquire the Yola Disco; we are also paying interest on the Yola investment and the Yola Disco has already been handed over to the government three years ago. Yet, we, as investors, have not been refunded. Is that how to do business? Is that how to encourage investors to do business in Nigeria?” Continuing, the billionaire oil magnate and philanthropist, said, “We brought business out of those entities. In fact, those assets should have been sold for $1 while we invest the money we paid to the Federal Government in optimising the asset.

“How can the government have sold these assets to Nigerians in dollars when the assets are in naira?”

Literally emitting fire, Okunbo also said, “I am not a thief; I have been servicing debts from my hard-earned money, servicing debts of a business that is not working. We carry members of staff that we are constantly paying salaries to.”

Capt. Okunbo, a former pilot who retired from the aviation industry in 1988 when he was barely 30, Okunbor, also a popular philanthropist, states, “In my three decades in business spanning engineering and technology, energy, integrated service in the petroleum sector, maritime, security, agriculture and others, integrity has been my guiding principle and a core value with which I have been able to earn trust and confidence of companies and corporations of global repute.

I have never stood before any administrative, judicial or legislative panels to answer any questions related to any shady deal. I have conducted my businesses with utmost openness, honesty and integrity. I am not oblivious of the fact that not a few people look up to me as a role model; the least I can do is to exhibit exemplary leadership quality to this group of young Nigerians, many of whom interact with me on a regular basis.”

Interestingly, however, there are so many people that borrowed huge money from the banks and stash it in foreign banks while some keep theirs in shallow grave. And they still walk freely in Nigeria.

With the present situation of things, it is short of reaching the conclusion that our government is set up such that it cripples local businesses and discourage local investors while offering foreigners unbelievable waivers and opportunities that are denied Nigerians who genuinely want to move the country forward.

 

The Capital

News and Report

Yahaya Bello and the EFCC Quandary: The Devil is in the Details – Ayoola Ajanaku

Published

on

By

 

The dust is yet to settle, following the efforts of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to arrest the immediate past governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello last week, on the heels of the anti-graft agency preparation to arraign him over corruption charges. This development is more than what meets the eye, as it’s laden with intricate details that are the kernel of this lucid treatise.

The attempt to arrest the ex-governor led to the gestapo like siege to his residence located in Wuse Zone 4, FCT earlier. Officials of the EFCC cordoned off the road and entrance to the residence of the former Kogi State governor for most of Wednesday.

Despite the heavy presence of EFCC operatives around Bello’s residence, his successor in office, Usman Ododo, paid him a solidarity visit. Ododo arrived the erstwhile helmsman’s residence in the afternoon and was cheered by the loyalists of the former governor who were present to give support to their embattled principal.

Also, while the siege on Bello’s residence was still on, two conflicting court rulings emerged in respect to the attempt to arrest of the former governor by the EFCC. One of the rulings, which came from a Kogi State High Court sitting in Lokoja, restrained the EFCC from arresting, detaining or prosecuting Bello.

Justice I.A Jamil, who gave the order in a ruling last week, stated that infringing on the fundamental human rights of the former Kogi helmsman is null and void except as authorised by the Court.

“By this order, the EFCC is hereby restrained from arresting, detaining and prosecuting the applicant except as authorised by the Court.

“This is a definite order following the earlier interim injunction given,” he averred.

In another twist in the yoyo-like locomotion of multiple judicial pronouncements, however, the EFCC obtained permission from the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to arrest the ex-Kogi State governor in preparation to his arraignment on Thursday.

Justice Emeka Nwite granted the warrant this afternoon at the instance of the EFCC.

Love or hate Yahaya Bello, the pertinent questions begging for answers in this litigation are:

The EFCC had in March indicted Yahaya Bello, in an alleged diversion of about N100 billion, an offence said to have been committed months before he assumed office as governor in September 2015. If any third party dissects the budgetary appropriation of Kogi State and it’s IGR dispassionately then the numbers do not add up. The former helmsman meet a humongous liabilities and backlog of non-serviced facilities accruing to the Confluence State that had to be serviced. The pervasive prevarication that colossal funds found it’s into his pockets amount to ‘Alice in Wonderland’ tales.

The anti-graft agency had joined Yahaya Bello in the amended suit alongside the Chief of Staff to Kogi State Governor, Alli Bello, and one Daudu Suleiman, who was re-arraigned by the anti-graft agency before Justice James Omotoso of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

The ex-governor was not a defendant in the original suit, and was not in court on the said day.

Justice Omotoso had granted an accelerated hearing in the matter and had also ordered that all forms of objections must be kept in abeyance till the address stage and the charge were read to them.

In the first count, the former governor, and the two suspects were accused of conspiring with each other in September 2015 and converting N80, 246, 470, 089 to their personal use. For contextual and editorial alignment, the goalposts of allegations have witnessed shifting and amendments.

What court Order did the EFCC appeal against as well as the reason behind it?

It is a germane fact in public domain that the EFCC appealed against the Order granted on the 9th of February, 2024 by the High Court of Kogi State, the said order was an order restraining the EFCC from inviting, arresting or detaining the Applicant vide Notice of Appeal filed on 26th February, 2024.

Also, the EFCC further asked for a stay of Execution of the Interim Order at the Court of Appeal on 21st of March, 2024, which request was refused by the Court of Appeal.

However, on the 6th of March, 2024, in defiance of the interim Orders and their own pending appeal against the interim Order, the EFCC proceeded to prefer a 17 Count(s) Charge before Justice Nwite of the Federal High Court against Yahaya Bello.

The EFCC went further to resort to self help when on the 17th of March, 2024, it approached the same Federal High Court, Abuja, via an Ex-parte application and without informing the said court of the interim Order and their pending appeal against the interim order, to obtain an arrest warrant against the same person in respect of whose Order they had appealed to the court of appeal.

Akin to the above, if indeed the EFCC has nothing to conceal, why are they trying to muddle up the issues on account of the main judgement that was also subsequently delivered in the same High Court of Kogi State without recourse to the interim order that they appealed against and requested to be stayed, which request was refused?

The EFCC claims to have extended invitation to Yahaya Bello’s quarter immediately after his tenure elapsed on January 27th 2024. He has challenged the anti-graft agency to produce a copy of this invitation, including the delivery date and the recipient’s name and endorsement. There’s ample confidence on his part that they cannot provide ample evidence to this effect.

This sudden attempt at trying to confuse unsuspecting public with sentimental press statements and mug shot poster emblazoned with wanted message in capital letters. These actions intended to impugn and malign Yahaya Bello would not help them clear the infraction and abuse of the judicial process to give a dog a bag name to hang it. It’s a recurring decimal and standard MO of the anti-graft agency to embark on the route of smear campaign on suspects in a bid to gain an edge in the gallery of public opinion.

Again, by the admission of EFCC to the effect that they were at the Court of Appeal on the matter, and at the same time, approached a Federal High Court without informing the court of the subsisting order and appeal, is an admission of abuse of judicial process, and a fraudulent deceit of the court that has led it to granting conflicting Orders while appeal was pending.

This approach is a grave infraction of due process of law, subsequently, the statement issued by the learned counsel representing EFCC in the said matter amounts to trying to justify the infraction in a media trial which is unethical and not allowed or recognized in the legal profession.

The NJC should seriously investigate this matter as the conduct of the EFCC lawyer is clearly unethical and smirks of “Jankara” and “Boju Boju” practice of circumventing due course of the law.

The EFCC had appealed the order on March 11, 2024 and sought a stay of execution in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/175/2024: Economic and Financial Crimes Commission v. Alhaji Yahaya Bello. The Court of Appeal did not grant the stay of execution, but fixed yesterday for hearing.

The appeal, however, failed to take place as the registrar told journalists that the appeal was not listed among the cases for the day.

The latest development in this jurisprudential tango, the embattled immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello said he was ready to appear before the Federal High Court in Abuja to answer to the 19-count charge the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, preferred against him.

Though Bello was absent for his arraignment, he briefed a team of lawyers who addressed the court on his behalf on Tuesday. A member of his legal team, Mr. Adeola Adedipe, SAN, told the court that his client would have made himself available for the proceedings, but all he clamours for is the strict adherence to the rule of law.

“The defendant wants to come to court but he is afraid that there is an order of arrest hanging on his head,” Adedipe, SAN, submitted.

Consequently, he urged the court to set aside the exparte order of arrest it earlier issued against the former governor.

Adedipe, SAN, contended that as at the time the order of arrest was made, the charge had not been served on his client as required by the law.

He noted that it was only at the resumed proceedings on Tuesday that the court okayed substituted service of the charge on the defendant, through his lawyer.

“As at the time the warrant was issued, the order for substituted service had not been made. That order was just made this morning.

“A warrant of arrest should not be hanging on his neck when we leave this court,” counsel to the defendant added.

Time will tell where the pendulum will swing, as Yahaya Bello is fighting a battle of his life to untangle himself from the charges filed by the Nigeria’s anti-graft agency earlier that has caught the attention of all and sundry.

In a nutshell, the pontification of prominent Lutheran pastor in Germany, Martin Niemoller rings a bell in this scenario. “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out -because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Regardless of his exact words, Niemöller’s message remained consistent: he declared that through silence, indifference, and inaction worse things happen. Alas, reverse is the case as in this part of the world an individual is not presumed innocent until proven guilty. The hounds and irate mob are out and baying for blood aided by apparatus of power with a predetermined ploy to have Yahaya Bello’s head on a plate via the guillotine.

Ayoola Ajanaku is a Communications and Advocacy Specialist based in Lagos, Nigeria.

Continue Reading

News and Report

Breach of contract: Shell sues Venture Global in US court

Published

on

By

•As NLNG risks sanctions from UK court

Following restriction of Liquefied Natural Gas LNG supply to its customers, Shell PLC has made claims against Venture Global LNG(VGL) a United States based LNG exporter, for its breach of contract to supply LNG cargoes.

Also, Nigeria LNG may risk sanctions from a UK High Court for a similar breach of an LNG supply contract.

Both Venture Global LNG and NLNG have been facing hurdles in the United States and in the United Kingdom for its breach of contract in a relatively similar fashion.

While Shell Plc filed its claim with U.S. regulators, the NLNG breach, has now been advanced to the UK High courts for further litigation.

Nigeria LNG is challenging the enforceability of the arbitral award’s demand order, issued by the arbitration panel.

According to Reuters report, Shell Plc has escalated its dispute with Venture Global LNG.

It accused the liquefied natural gas producer of restricting supply access to it and other customers, while exporting over $18 billion in LNG.

In a letter sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Shell requested the commission to compel Venture Global LNG to disclose plant commissioning data to clarify the cause of delayed commercial operations.

Shell and other European companies say they contracted with Venture Global LNG but did not get their gas cargoes under long-term contracts.

They alleged that Venture Global LNG has been selling gas from the plant for more than a year to others, costing them billions in lost profit.

On its part, Nigeria LNG was held to be in breach of contract by failing to deliver 19 cargoes under a contract it executed in January 2020.

The cargoes, which were due for delivery between October 2020 and October 2021, have not been delivered.

In pleadings made by NLNG in its Particulars of Claims to the High Court of Justice in England and Wales Commercial Court, it’s breach was confirmed by a final arbitration award dated 30th January 2023.

The arbitration tribunal comprised Mr John Beechey CBE, Mr J William Rowley KC and Mr Nevil Phillips.

Nigeria LNG Ltd., is significantly owned by Shell, Total, and Eni.

An industry expert cited similarities between the disputes involving Venture Global LNG and Nigeria LNG. The source attributed the challenge to the unexpected surge in the LNG market.

“The reason for this surge in disputes may be related to the unexpected turn in losses to highly profitable margins, as high as $90 million per cargo, at the beginning of the Russian Ukraine conflict, post Covid market recovery and a huge demand in Asia and European markets, it is seen as a golden era for LNG cargoes.

“This situation may have prompted numerous defaults on agreements, with major LNG suppliers opting to retain higher margins at the risk of lengthy litigations,” the source added.“

 

Continue Reading

News and Report

We Have Put in Place definitive measures to Bolster our Production’ – Oando GCE, Wale Tinubu  

Published

on

By

After releasing the FY 2022 financial statements, Oando Plc has issued a press statement to address its net loss of N81.2 billion incurred in 2022, citing militancy and pipeline vandalism as major culprits.

Despite reporting a gross turnover of N1.99 trillion during the fiscal year, the group posted a loss after tax of N81.2 billion, a significant downturn from the N39.2 billion profit after tax posted in 2021.

Wale Tinubu, Group Chief Executive of Oando Plc, commenting on the result, noted,

“The heightened militancy and pipeline vandalism acts within the Niger Delta region dealt a substantial blow to our upstream operations, resulting in a marked reduction in our crude production volumes due to the protracted shut-ins for repair following each incidence. This was further compounded by a major gas plant fire incident which also necessitated a lengthy downtime.”

“Furthermore, a rise in our net interest expense due to increased interest rates on several of our major facilities in line with global rates increases, also contributed to our Loss after Tax position.”

“In response, we have put in place definitive measures to bolster our production and cash inflows towards ensuring a speedy return to profitability by collaborating with our partners to institute a comprehensive security framework aimed at permanently curbing the persistent pipeline vandalism whilst concurrently exploring inorganic growth opportunities to increase our reserves and production capabilities. We have also implemented a strategic restructuring of our key facilities to ensure they align with our cash flow dynamics.”

Recommended reading: Pipeline vandalism cost Nigeria N471 billion in 5 Years

Economic implication of oil theft in Nigeria

Theft and vandalism of oil installations is a major problem plaguing the oil and gas sector in Nigeria. The crime of oil theft has had a negative impact on the national economy and the business of local and international oil companies operating in the upstream sector.

Although there is no precise figure to quantify the financial impact of oil theft on the Nigerian economy, a study conducted by Dimkpa et al. (2023) estimates that Nigeria lost approximately $33.6 billion in oil revenue to oil theft between 2019 and 2022.

 A significant economic implication for Nigeria has been the consistent decline in oil production. Nigeria’s average oil production in 2022 was at 1.45 million barrels per day, an almost 1-million-barrel decline from the 2.4 million barrels per day produced by Nigeria in 2012.

In 2022, Oando’s total upstream production amounted to 20,703 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boe/day). This comprised 4,939 barrels per day of crude oil, 472 barrels per day of natural gas liquids, and 15,292 barrels per day of natural gas.

This figure represents a 22.7% decline from the 26,775 boe/d output reported by the group in 2021.

According to the company’s press statement, the decline in production was attributed to downtimes caused by shut-ins for repairs and sabotage activities.

In 2022, Oando Plc sold approximately 21.8 million barrels of crude oil, representing a 25% increase from the 17.4 million barrels sold in 2021. The group also sold about 1.94 million metric tonnes of refined petroleum, representing a 101% increase from the 962,371 metric tonnes sold in 2021.

Despite recording a decline in oil output, the group was able to sell an increased amount of crude oil due to its contracts with the then Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), ultimately contributing to its 148% revenue growth in 2022.

In 2022, Oando sold crude oil at an average realized oil price of $101.55/barrel and a gas price of $14.74/Boe, compared to 2021’s prices of $62.14/barrel for crude oil and $9.95/Boe for gas.

OMLs 60 to 63 gulped about $77.7 million in capital expenditure (CAPEX) from Oando, while OML 56 and OML 13 gulped about $22.6 million and $200,000 respectively. The group also spent $1.4 million in capital expenditure (CAPEX) on other assets.

As of 2022, Oando owned 20% stake in OMLs 60 to 63, as Nigerian Agip Oil Company (NAOC) also owned a 20% stake.

However, Oando is in the process of purchasing NAOC’s 20% stake in the oil fields, which will push its stake up to 40%.

Continue Reading

Trending