BARELY days after the successful initial public offering (IPO) of Dangote Refinery, fresh trouble has emerged for the multi-billion-dollar facility, as the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) and the refinery have found themselves before the Federal High Court in Lagos over a dispute surrounding the quality and distribution of propane and the suspension of truck-out operations.
News Point Nigeria reports that the face-off between the regulator and the Dangote Petroleum Refinery came to a head at the Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday, following NMDPRA’s directive suspending propane loading and truck-out operations at the refinery, a decision the refinery has challenged in court while accusing the regulator of abusing its powers.
The court had on August 31 restrained NMDPRA, its officers, agents and representatives from entering, sealing, shutting down, restricting access to, obstructing, suspending, disrupting, inspecting, supervising or sanctioning the refinery’s operations pending the hearing and determination of the substantive application.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, NMDPRA, through its counsel, Matthew Burkaa, urged the court to discharge the interim order, arguing that it was obtained through alleged misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.
The regulator also challenged the jurisdiction of Justice Akintayo Aluko to grant the order, arguing that Dangote Refinery had not filed the required motion on notice when its ex-parte application was heard.
According to NMDPRA, the decision to suspend propane loading and truck-out operations followed findings of alleged diversion of propane-laden trucks to unknown and unlicensed customers, as well as the alleged illegal blending of propane at some LPG plants.
NMDPRA said its investigation began after laboratory tests conducted on LPG samples from three plants – Selai, Tewa and Ameego Pago – allegedly showed propane content above 50 per cent.
It said industry requirements stipulated that propane should constitute no more than 20 per cent of an LPG blend, while butane should account for about 80 per cent.
The regulator said representatives of the three plants were invited to discuss the findings and identified Sublime Oil and Gas Limited, an off-taker from Dangote Refinery, as their source of propane.
NMDPRA said this prompted a wider reconciliation and material-balance exercise involving propane-producing facilities and LPG-blending plants. It further alleged that its officials were denied access when they attempted to inspect propane-loading operations and records at Dangote Refinery on August 24.
The regulator subsequently issued a notice of potential non-compliance and directed the refinery to suspend propane loading and truck-out pending the outcome of its investigation and the implementation of additional safety measures.
According to NMDPRA, an examination of the refinery’s truck-out manifests revealed significant discrepancies. It alleged that Sublime Oil and Gas lifted 25 trucks of propane on August 20 and 22 for delivery to Navgas/Agasco, but Navgas confirmed receiving only six.
The regulator therefore said the remaining 19 trucks were unaccounted for.
NMDPRA also alleged that records from Delta State showed that another off-taker loaded 52 trucks between May and August 2026 for delivery to Navgas, but Navgas reportedly confirmed that none of the consignments were received.
It argued that the alleged diversion of propane to unauthorised and unlicensed customers raised serious public health and safety concerns, particularly because the product was allegedly being used for LPG blending outside approved standards.
The regulator further claimed that propane produced by Dangote and other gas-processing facilities had a vapour pressure of about 13 bar, compared with the maximum seven-bar pressure required for the standard propane-butane LPG mixture.
It argued that the higher-pressure propane could pose an explosion risk at LPG refilling plants not designed to handle such pressure.
However, Dangote Group’s spokesman, Anthony Chiejina, rejected the regulator’s position, arguing that NMDPRA officials had inspected and certified the propane before it left the refinery.
Chiejina said, “We have NMDPRA staff there in the refinery. They inspected and certified the product as okay. Then, a company came to pick up the product with its truck, not Dangote’s truck. You later arrested the truck somewhere else and said it was conveying adulterated or blended propane. How does that concern us after you tested and certified our product okay?”
He added, “You went to the plant to seal it and later left the plant. For me, that is an absolute abuse of power by NMDPRA. And that is just a diabolical sense of control. It makes no sense. That’s what led to the court action.”
Chiejina further challenged the regulator to produce its records, saying, “They have a hidden transcript. Assuming you entered our refinery and discovered that what we have there is blended, that’s a different thing. You have earlier certified the product.”
He also questioned Dangote Refinery’s responsibility for the movements of products after they had been purchased and transported by independent off-takers.
“Let them go and check their records. And the owner of the truck has left with his truck. Where he goes with his truck – is it my business? He does what he likes with his products,” he said.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, counsel for Dangote Refinery, Wale Akoni, SAN, drew the court’s attention to NMDPRA’s counter-affidavit filed in response to the refinery’s motion on notice.
Akoni, however, requested a brief adjournment to enable him to respond, saying he had only been served with the counter-affidavit in court on Wednesday.
Burkaa did not oppose the request but emphasised the urgency of the matter because of the safety concerns raised by the regulator.
Justice Aluko, however, said he could not fix a fresh date because he was sitting as a vacation judge and the court’s annual vacation would end on Friday.
“My jurisdiction ends on Friday as far as the vacation matter is concerned. Therefore, the Admin Judge will, in his wisdom, decide where the case file should go,” the judge said.
“So, it’s not even proper for me to give you a date now. The case file should be sent back to the court registry for the admin judge to, in his wisdom, set a date.”
The judge thereafter extended the interim order restraining NMDPRA from interfering with the refinery’s operations pending the hearing and determination of the substantive application.
Justice Aluko held, “I find it proper to extend the interim order made on the 31st day of August 2026. It shall continue to subsist and shall be in force till the hearing and determination of the motion on notice, or until the court gives further directive.”
He subsequently directed that the case file be returned to the registry for assignment to the regular court by the administrative judge.
“The case file is hereby remitted to the registry for assignment to the regular court by the Honourable Administrative Judge,” the judge held.
The court’s interim order therefore remains in force while the substantive dispute over NMDPRA’s regulatory action, the quality and handling of propane, and the alleged diversion of trucks awaits determination. The earlier court order had specifically restrained the regulator from shutting down or otherwise disrupting the refinery’s operations.