NNPC’s Five Point Defence Against Dangote Refinery
The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited has urged the Federal High Court in Lagos to dismiss the Dangote Petroleum Refinery’s bid to halt fuel importation, warning that the refinery’s products are sold at “significantly high and fluctuating market prices” and that granting its requests could hand it monopoly control of Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector.
The state oil company set out its position in a counter affidavit filed in opposition to Dangote refinery’s originating summons in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/857/2026 before the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division.
The Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE had dragged the Attorney General of the Federation and the NNPC before the court, challenging the issuance of petrol import licences by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority. The NMDPRA recently approved licences for the importation of over 700,000 metric tonnes of petrol, despite Dangote refinery’s claims that it now supplies more than 90 percent of Nigeria’s daily petrol consumption.
The refinery, owned by billionaire businessman Aliko Dangote, has accused NNPC and other agencies of sabotaging its $20bn investment by denying it crude supplies while resorting to fuel importation.
In its response, NNPC raised a preliminary objection challenging the suit’s competence and the refinery’s locus standi. “The plaintiff’s suit is premature; the plaintiff lacks locus standi,” the affidavit read.
NNPC accused the refinery of forum shopping, citing an earlier similar action filed in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024 at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, which was later withdrawn before the current Lagos suit was instituted.
The national oil company maintained that no credible evidence existed showing the refinery could independently meet Nigeria’s petroleum demand. “There is no credible, independent, or verifiable evidence before this honourable court establishing that the plaintiff presently satisfies the petroleum product demands of Nigeria,” it argued, adding that the refinery’s “alleged production figures are selective, incomplete, and incapable of establishing nationwide product sufficiency.”
NNPC further warned that restricting importation as sought “would expose Nigeria to severe risks of petroleum shortages, supply disruptions, price instability, distribution failures, and national energy crises.” Granting the reliefs, it said, “would effectively expose Nigeria’s petroleum sector to monopoly control and undermine competitive participation within the industry.”
The company denied allegations of sabotage, stating: “The government and the 2nd Defendant have not deliberately denied the plaintiff a crude oil supply.” It defended the legality of the import licences under Section 317(9) of the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, noting that Section 317(8) merely confers discretionary, not mandatory, powers on regulators regarding backward integration.
Marketers under the Petroleum Products Retail Outlet Owners Association of Nigeria have backed NNPC’s position. National President Billy Gillis Harry stated that competition remains critical “for ensuring product availability, price moderation, efficiency, and sustainability within the petroleum distribution value chain.” He warned against allowing the market to “tilt towards monopoly, regardless of the scale of investment or refining capacity of any single operator.”
The NMDPRA and some marketers are reportedly planning to join the suit.
The Crude Oil Refineries Association of Nigeria, however, sided with Dangote. Its Publicity Secretary, Eche Idoko, argued that commitment to the sector should be measured by capital invested, not trading activity. “Local refinery companies have demonstrated belief in Nigeria’s downstream sector by committing capital to fixed industrial assets located within the country,” CORAN said.
The latest legal showdown is the second major confrontation between Dangote refinery and federal oil agencies since the Lekki based refinery commenced operations. The dispute traces back to disagreements over petroleum importation, crude oil supply arrangements, and the implementation of the Petroleum Industry Act following the 2023 removal of the petrol subsidy, which deregulated the downstream sector.