According to Nivo News, legal and energy experts have issued a strong warning over the lingering dispute between Dangote Petroleum Refinery and the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA), cautioning that the matter goes far beyond a routine commercial disagreement and cuts to the core of Nigeria’s approach to managing its hydrocarbon resources.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

In a joint statement, Collins Okeke, Partner and Head of Government Affairs, alongside Dr. Olisa Agbakoba SAN, Senior Partner at Olisa Agbakoba Legal, described the controversy as one that strikes at the heart of Nigeria’s sovereignty over its oil and gas governance framework. They expressed concern over what they termed a troubling contradiction in the country’s energy landscape.

The experts highlighted the irony of Nigeria hosting a $20 billion refinery—one of the largest in the world—while still relying heavily on imported petroleum products. They noted that a private investor has delivered critical refining capacity that the nation urgently needs, yet is allegedly being undermined by the same regulatory institution mandated to promote and protect such strategic investments.

According to the statement, policies that actively hinder transformative local investments raise serious questions about whether Nigeria’s economic direction truly serves the national interest or merely sustains long-standing dependency. The experts stressed that the disagreement encompasses far-reaching issues such as local refining capacity, poverty reduction, job creation and industrial growth, all of which are central to effective governance of the nation’s most valuable natural resource.

Okeke and Agbakoba further described the situation as a reflection of two sharply contrasting petroleum governance models. They explained that Nigeria largely operates under what they termed a “Contract Oil” system, where crude oil is treated mainly as an export commodity, with value addition and employment opportunities effectively outsourced to foreign economies.

Under this framework, they argued, Nigeria exports crude oil only to import refined products at higher costs, reinforcing dependency instead of driving domestic development. In contrast, they pointed to Saudi Arabia’s “Development Oil” model, which prioritises building strong local capacity and refuses to allow practices that undermine national industrial growth. They noted that Saudi Arabia has developed world-class refineries, downstream infrastructure and a robust maritime fleet, while Nigeria, despite being Africa’s largest oil producer, lacks comparable capacity.

The experts also cited Section 44(3) of the Nigerian Constitution, which vests ownership of oil and gas resources in the Federal Government and mandates that they be managed for the welfare and security of Nigerians. They argued that regulatory actions that obstruct investments capable of creating jobs, boosting local capacity and reducing import dependence amount to a breach of this constitutional duty.

They further described the current scenario—where a local refinery reportedly struggles to access crude feedstock while import licences continue to be issued—as a fundamental failure of constitutional responsibility. According to them, the dispute is not merely about one company or facility, but about whether Nigeria will persist with a model they say has fuelled decades of the resource curse, or adopt a development-driven approach aligned with constitutional mandates and national progress.

The experts concluded that the situation represents a critical crossroads for the country, framing it as a choice between sovereignty and dependency, development and stagnation, and constitutional compliance versus short-term commercial considerations. They urged all relevant stakeholders to acknowledge the broader implications of the dispute and pursue a resolution that upholds Nigeria’s constitutional obligations, supports sustainable development and safeguards the nation’s long-term interests.