The Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, NMDPRA, and the Dangote Petroleum Refinery have continued their legal dispute over the handling and distribution of propane from the refinery.
The disagreement came before the Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday, with NMDPRA asking the court to lift an interim order preventing it from enforcing a suspension of propane loading and truck-out operations at the refinery.
Dangote, however, accused the regulator of exceeding its powers.
The court had on August 31, 2026, issued an interim order restraining NMDPRA, its officials, agents and representatives from entering, sealing, shutting down, restricting access to, obstructing, suspending, disrupting, inspecting, supervising or sanctioning the refinery’s operations pending the determination of the substantive application.
Representing NMDPRA, its counsel, Matthew Burkaa, argued that Dangote had obtained the order through what the regulator described as the misrepresentation and suppression of important facts.
The regulator also questioned Justice Akintayo Aluko’s jurisdiction to issue the order, claiming the refinery had not filed the required motion on notice when its ex-parte application was considered.
NMDPRA said its decision to suspend propane loading and truck-out activities followed investigations into the alleged diversion of propane-loaded trucks to unidentified and unlicensed customers, as well as suspected illegal blending of propane at some LPG plants.
According to the regulator, laboratory tests carried out on LPG samples from Selai, Tewa and Ameego Pago showed propane levels above 50 per cent.
NMDPRA said industry standards require propane to account for no more than 20 per cent of an LPG blend, with butane making up approximately 80 per cent.
The regulator said representatives of the three plants were invited to explain the findings and identified Sublime Oil and Gas Limited, an off-taker from Dangote Refinery, as their source of propane.
This led to a broader reconciliation and material-balance exercise involving facilities producing propane and plants involved in LPG blending.
NMDPRA also alleged that its officials were denied access when they attempted to inspect propane-loading activities and relevant records at Dangote Refinery on August 24, 2026.
The regulator subsequently issued a notice of potential non-compliance and ordered the suspension of propane loading and truck-out operations while investigations continued and additional safety measures were considered.
NMDPRA further alleged that a review of truck-out manifests revealed discrepancies in the movement of propane.
It claimed that Sublime Oil and Gas loaded 25 propane trucks on August 20 and 22 for delivery to Navgas/Agasco, but Navgas reportedly confirmed receiving only six.
The regulator therefore said 19 trucks remained unaccounted for.
It also alleged that records from Delta State showed another off-taker loaded 52 trucks between May and August 2026 for delivery to Navgas, but Navgas reportedly confirmed that none of those consignments arrived.
NMDPRA maintained that the alleged diversion of propane to unauthorised and unlicensed customers created significant public safety concerns, particularly if the product was being used for LPG blending outside approved standards.
The regulator also claimed that propane produced by Dangote and other gas-processing facilities had a vapour pressure of approximately 13 bar, compared with the maximum seven-bar pressure required for the standard propane-butane LPG mixture.
It argued that the higher-pressure product could create an explosion risk at LPG filling facilities that were not designed to handle such pressure.
However, Dangote Group spokesman, Anthony Chiejina, rejected the regulator’s claims.
Chiejina argued that NMDPRA officials stationed at the refinery had inspected and certified the propane before it was transported.
He questioned how Dangote could be held responsible for a truck belonging to an independent company after the product had been purchased and transported from the refinery.
Chiejina also accused NMDPRA of abusing its regulatory powers and said the disagreement was what eventually led Dangote to seek legal intervention.
He further challenged the regulator to produce its records and distinguish between the product certified at the refinery and what may have happened after it was collected by independent off-takers.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, counsel to Dangote Refinery, Wale Akoni, SAN, referred the court to NMDPRA’s counter-affidavit filed in response to the refinery’s motion on notice.
Akoni requested a short adjournment to allow him to respond, explaining that he had only received the counter-affidavit in court that same day.
Burkaa did not object but stressed the urgency of the case because of the safety concerns raised by the regulator.
Justice Aluko, however, said he could not schedule another hearing because he was sitting as a vacation judge and the court’s annual vacation was due to end on Friday.
The judge said the case file would have to return to the registry, where the administrative judge would determine the appropriate court and hearing date.
Justice Aluko subsequently extended the interim order issued on August 31, meaning it will remain in effect until the substantive motion is heard and determined or until the court issues another directive.
He also directed that the case file be returned to the registry for assignment to the regular court by the administrative judge.
The legal dispute will therefore continue, with the court yet to determine the substantive issues surrounding NMDPRA’s regulatory action, the quality and handling of propane, the alleged diversion of trucks and the refinery’s operations.
Source: The PUNCH
