Dangote Refinery, NMDPRA Trade Accusations Over Propane Suspension in Court

A regulatory dispute between the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority and the Dangote Petroleum Refinery over the handling and distribution of propane has escalated into a legal battle, with both sides accusing each other of wrongdoing.

The dispute came before the Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday following an interim order obtained by Dangote Refinery restraining NMDPRA from interfering with its operations.

At the centre of the case is the regulator’s decision to suspend propane loading and truck-out activities at the refinery amid allegations that propane supplied by the facility was being diverted to unauthorised customers and used in LPG blending outside approved standards.

NMDPRA asked the court to discharge the interim order, arguing that it was obtained on the basis of alleged misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.

The regulator, represented by its counsel, Matthew Burkaa, also questioned the jurisdiction of Justice Akintayo Aluko to issue the order. It argued that Dangote Refinery had not filed the required motion on notice at the time its ex-parte application was heard.

Justice Aluko had, on August 31, restrained 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 hearing and determination of the substantive application.

NMDPRA told the court that its decision to halt propane loading and truck-out operations followed an investigation into the alleged diversion of propane-laden trucks to unknown and unlicensed customers, as well as claims that the product was being illegally blended at some LPG plants.

According to the regulator, the investigation was triggered by laboratory tests on LPG samples collected from three plants — Selai, Tewa and Ameego Pago. The tests allegedly showed that the propane content in the samples exceeded 50 per cent.

NMDPRA maintained that industry standards require propane to make up no more than 20 per cent of an LPG blend, with butane accounting for approximately 80 per cent.

The regulator said representatives of the three plants were invited to explain the test results and subsequently identified Sublime Oil and Gas Limited, an off-taker from Dangote Refinery, as their source of propane.

That development, NMDPRA said, led to a broader reconciliation and material-balance exercise involving facilities producing propane and plants engaged in LPG blending.

The authority further alleged that its officials were denied access to the refinery when they attempted to inspect propane-loading operations and relevant records on August 24.

Following the alleged refusal, the regulator issued a notice of potential non-compliance and directed Dangote Refinery to suspend propane loading and truck-out activities pending the conclusion of its investigation and the introduction of additional safety measures.

NMDPRA also told the court that its review of truck-out manifests uncovered what it described as 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 that Navgas confirmed receiving only six of the consignments.

The regulator said the whereabouts of the remaining 19 trucks could not be accounted for.

It further alleged that records from Delta State showed another off-taker loaded 52 trucks between May and August 2026 for delivery to Navgas, while Navgas reportedly confirmed that none of those consignments were received.

According to NMDPRA, the alleged diversion of propane to unauthorised and unlicensed customers presented significant public health and safety risks because the product was allegedly being used for LPG blending outside prescribed standards.

The regulator also raised concerns about the pressure characteristics of the propane produced by Dangote and other gas-processing facilities.

It claimed the product had a vapour pressure of approximately 13 bar, compared with a maximum seven-bar pressure for the standard propane-butane LPG mixture.

NMDPRA argued that propane with the alleged higher vapour pressure could create an explosion hazard at LPG refilling facilities that were not designed to handle such pressure.

Dangote, however, strongly rejected the regulator’s allegations and questioned the basis for the suspension.

The Dangote Group spokesman, Anthony Chiejina, said NMDPRA officials stationed at the refinery had inspected and certified the propane before it was taken away by an independent off-taker.

“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?” Chiejina said.

He accused the regulator of exceeding its powers, particularly after its officials visited the facility.

“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,” he added.

Chiejina also challenged NMDPRA to produce the records supporting its allegations and questioned the basis for holding the refinery responsible for any subsequent blending of the product.

“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 said.

He further argued that the refinery could not be held responsible for the actions of independent customers after they had taken possession of their products.

“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 hearing, counsel to Dangote Refinery, Wale Akoni, SAN, directed the court’s attention to NMDPRA’s counter-affidavit filed in response to the refinery’s motion on notice.

Akoni sought a short adjournment to allow him to respond, explaining that he had only received the counter-affidavit in court that day.

Burkaa did not object to the request but stressed the urgency of the matter, citing the safety concerns raised by the regulator.

Justice Aluko, however, explained that he could not assign another hearing date because he was sitting as a vacation judge and the court’s annual vacation was due to 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.

He added, “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.”

Despite the jurisdictional challenge raised by NMDPRA, the judge extended the interim order restraining the regulator 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 then ordered 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 interim protection granted to Dangote Refinery therefore remains in effect for now, while the substantive case is transferred for further hearing.

The eventual determination will address the regulator’s allegations concerning the quality, distribution and handling of propane, the alleged diversion of propane-laden trucks and NMDPRA’s authority to suspend the refinery’s loading and truck-out operations.

For now, the court order continues to prevent NMDPRA from shutting down, restricting or otherwise disrupting the refinery’s operations pending further judicial proceedings.