The Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) and Dangote Petroleum Refinery have clashed over allegations surrounding the quality and distribution of propane, as a Federal High Court in Lagos extended an order restraining the regulator from interfering with the refinery’s operations.
The dispute came to a head on Wednesday when NMDPRA asked the court to discharge an interim order preventing it from enforcing its directive suspending propane loading and truck-out operations at the refinery.
The court had on 31 August 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 determination of the substantive application.
Arguing before Justice Akintayo Aluko, counsel to NMDPRA, Matthew Burkaa, said the interim order had been obtained through alleged misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.
The regulator also challenged the court’s jurisdiction to grant the order, arguing that Dangote Refinery had not filed the required motion on notice when its ex-parte application was heard.
NMDPRA said its decision to suspend propane loading and truck-out operations followed investigations into the alleged diversion of propane-laden trucks to unknown and unlicensed customers, as well as alleged illegal blending of propane at some Liquefied Petroleum Gas plants.
According to the regulator, laboratory tests conducted on LPG samples from three plants — Selai, Tewa and Ameego Pago — showed propane content above 50 per cent.
It said industry requirements stipulated that propane should account for no more than 20 per cent of an LPG blend, while butane should constitute about 80 per cent.
NMDPRA 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.
The regulator subsequently carried out a wider reconciliation and material-balance exercise involving propane-producing facilities and LPG-blending plants.
It alleged that its officials were denied access when they attempted to inspect propane-loading operations and records at Dangote Refinery on 24 August.
NMDPRA said it subsequently issued a notice of potential non-compliance and directed the refinery to suspend propane loading and truck-out operations pending the conclusion of its investigation and the implementation of additional safety measures.
The regulator further alleged that an examination of the refinery’s truck-out manifests revealed significant discrepancies.
It claimed that Sublime Oil and Gas lifted 25 trucks of propane on 20 and 22 August for delivery to Navgas/Agasco, but Navgas confirmed receiving only six of the consignments, leaving 19 trucks unaccounted for.
NMDPRA also alleged that another off-taker loaded 52 trucks from a facility in Delta State between May and August 2026 for delivery to Navgas, but that Navgas confirmed receiving none of the consignments.
The regulator argued that the alleged diversion of propane to unauthorised and unlicensed customers posed serious public health and safety concerns, particularly where the product was allegedly being used for LPG blending outside approved standards.
It 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.
NMDPRA said 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 allegations and maintained that NMDPRA officials had inspected and certified the propane before it left the refinery.
Chiejina questioned the refinery’s responsibility for the subsequent movement of products purchased and transported by independent off-takers.
He said the regulator had tested and approved the product before it was loaded, arguing that any subsequent actions by independent truck owners should not be attributed to the refinery.
Chiejina also accused NMDPRA of abusing its regulatory powers by attempting to seal the refinery, describing the action as unjustified.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, counsel to 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 requested a brief adjournment to enable him to respond, explaining that he had only been served with the counter-affidavit in court on Wednesday.
Burkaa did not oppose the request but stressed the urgency of the matter because of the safety concerns raised by the regulator.
Justice Aluko, however, said he could not fix a fresh hearing date because he was sitting as a vacation judge and the court’s annual vacation would end on Friday.
The judge subsequently extended the interim order restraining NMDPRA from interfering with Dangote Refinery’s operations pending the hearing and determination of the substantive application.
Justice Aluko directed that the case file be returned to the registry for assignment to the regular court by the administrative judge.
The interim order will therefore remain in force while the substantive dispute over NMDPRA’s regulatory action, the quality and handling of propane, and the alleged diversion of trucks is determined by the court.
