Tinubu’s anniversary article sparks clash between billionaire businessman and presidential aide

A dispute over port concession contracts between one of Nigeria’s largest business concerns, BUA Group, and the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) has reverberated seven years after former President Muhammadu Buhari resolved it.

An article published by Abdul Samad Rabiu, the chairman of the BUA Group, to commemorate the second anniversary in office of Mr Buhari’s successor, President Bola Tinubu, refreshed the dispute.

In the article published on 29 May, Mr Rabiu recalled how the NPA terminated the contracts with the BUA Group in 2019, jeopardising the company’s $500 million investment in Terminal B of the Port Harcourt Port and putting over 4,000 jobs at risk.

He said the notice to revoke the concession, terminate the lease agreement, and shut down the terminal came without prior warning.

However, Mr Samad’s recollection of the issues drew the ire of Hadiza Usman, the Managing Director of the NPA at the time of the dispute. Ironically, Ms Usman now serves as Special Adviser on Policy Coordination to President Tinubu.

Ms Usman, who led the NPA from 2016 to 2021, dismissed Mr Rabiu’s claims as “blatant falsehoods.” She said BUA Group received multiple notifications and warnings for failing to meet contractual obligations, adding that the issues predated her appointment as the NPA Managing Director.

The Bua Article

Mr Rabiu’s article did not focus on the NPA or indeed the controversy over the Port Harcourt port. In fact, only two paragraphs of the 23-paragraph article were related to the matter.

However, the two paragraphs questioned the actions of the NPA under Ms Usman and particularly the motive for the action as it relates to BUA’s operation.

Writing about what he described as fairness under the Tinubu administration, Mr Rabiu said, “Under this administration, we have seen a return to fairness and stability in business. We no longer worry about arbitrary shutdowns or politically motivated disruptions.”

The billionaire, as an example of what he said was unfair practices under the former president, then made reference to the NPA port saga.

“Let me give a real example,” he wrote. “We started a new business in Port Harcourt four or five years ago under BUA Foods, operating at the Rivers Ports under a concession with the Nigerian Ports Authority. It was going very well. One day, we woke up to a letter stating that the concession had been revoked, the terminal shut down, and the lease agreement terminated. There was no prior warning, no issue, no conflict.”

In the subsequent paragraph, Mr Rabiu then questioned the motive of the NPA chief for taking such action. Although he did not mention Ms Usman by name, the actions took place under her leadership and it was clear who he was referring to.

“Later, we discovered that the Managing Director of NPA at the time decided to close the business simply because our operations were competing with those of her friend. She wanted to impress her friend. That was the only reason. Today, that kind of thing cannot happen. Nobody would dare take such an action under President Tinubu. You can wake up now without fear that your business has been shut down by an agency or politician,” he wrote.

Ms Usman’s Response

In her rebuttal, Ms Usman explained that BUA entered into a 20-year concession agreement for Rivers Port Terminal B on 11 May 2006. The contract required BUA to begin full reconstruction of Berths 5 to 8 within 90 days of the handover.

However, she said the company failed to rehabilitate the berths for 10 years after signing the concession agreement. According to Ms Usman, the failure forced the NPA to issue BUA a notice of default through a letter dated 11 February 2016.

She noted that the notice was issued before she was appointed the MD of the NPA. Ms Usman was appointed by Mr Buhari in July 2016.

According to her, a second default notice was issued on 17 August 2016. Following the notices, a three-month termination notice was issued on 11 November 2016.

“BUA secured a restraining order from the Federal High Court on 18 January 2018. NPA complied and allowed BUA to continue operation without interference. The record clearly shows that due process was followed. Contrary to Mr Rabiu’s claims, the decision to issue a termination notice was not arbitrary, but the culmination of years of documented default,” she said.

PREMIUM TIMES asked Ms Usman to provide documents of the prior notices sent to BUA before the concession agreement was terminated.

However, she did not respond to our calls and messages to her phone number.

Ms Usman also accused the BUA chairman, Mr Rabiu, of abuse of presidential access.

Ms Usman derided Mr Rabiu’s assertion that his connections with the political authorities helped him to seek redress.

“While boasting about his access to former President Muhammadu Buhari, Mr Rabiu fails to mention that he used this access to misinform the former President, seeking political intervention to override contractual accountability and institutional due process.

“This action not only undermined the rule of law but also violated the spirit of transparency and fairness that must govern public-private partnerships,” she said.

BUA’s allegations

In a statement responding to Ms Usman’s allegation of contractual breach, BUA said it had begun formal engagement with the NPA to address outstanding remedial works and infrastructural deficiencies. According to the company, these discussions were near conclusion when Ms Usman assumed office.

BUA accused Ms Usman of ignoring requests and obligations under the lease agreement, including a letter in 2016, written under Article 8.4 of the lease agreement, highlighting environmental and safety concerns and seeking approval for remedial works.

However, Ms Usman allegedly used the letter as a basis to issue a termination notice and shut down the terminal.

It said the former NPA MD failed to invoke the dispute resolution clause.

“She forgot or failed to disclose in her response that the NPA, under her leadership, was itself in material breach of core obligations including failing to hand over critical portions of the port, leaving derelict iron ore on the berths, failing to dredge or repair quay walls, and neglecting to provide mandatory security. These lapses were significant impediments to BUA’s operations and, as a result, led to disputes between the parties,” the statement read.

BUA said it approached the Federal High Court and obtained an injunction restraining the NPA from proceeding with termination.

After that, the NPA referred the dispute to arbitration, as stipulated in Section 17.3 of the agreement.

“Despite this, Ms Usman, against the advice of her agency, unilaterally decommissioned the berths, thereby violating both the agreement and a court injunction. To be clear, the concession agreement granted her no such power to decommission. If she believes otherwise, we invite her to publicly cite the specific clause that authorises this action,” the statement read.

BUA said that the terminal was shut down despite providing the guarantees and indemnities requested by the NPA and getting permission to resume operations.

“This left no doubt that her actions were motivated not by due process, but by personal animosity and abuse of office,” the statement read.

BUA said it filed a $10 million contempt proceeding, which was later withdrawn.

Former President Buhari’s intervention

While Ms Usman claims that former President Buhari was misinformed, BUA insists that he acted on the facts of the matter.

According to BUA, Mr Buhari’s intervention followed a meeting with the Chairman of BUA Group in 2018. Mr Buhari directed the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation to conduct a thorough review, which found the termination of the concession agreement unlawful.

READ ALSO: PDP criticises Tinubu’s fresh borrowing plan, questions subsidy removal gain

BUA said Ms Usman failed to attend meetings during the review despite being invited. The AGF’s legal advice recommended reinstatement of BUA’s rights, prompting former President Buhari to order the reversal of the termination.

Ms Usman’s travails at the NPA

Ms Usman’s spat with Mr Rabiu brings back memories of her contentious stint as NPA MD.

She was suspended in 2021 and later replaced by Mohammed Bello-Koko, following allegations by then-Transportation Minister Rotimi Amaechi that the NPA failed to remit N165 billion operating surplus.

However, an administrative panel of inquiry found no evidence of mismanagement.

Niran Adedokun, the media and communications adviser to Ms Usman, denied BUA’s latest claims.

He said the concessionaires were responsible for reconstructing the berths and that the decision to decommission the berths was undertaken with the advice of relevant departments. He also denied the claim that the NPA did not attend the mediation meetings the Office of the Attorney-General called.

Mr Adedokun said, “BUA’s access to former President Muhammadu Buhari and his subsequent intervention was based on the manipulation of facts and misinformation.”

“It is interesting to note that BUA states with pride that it commenced a contractual obligation it was required to fulfil in 2006, in 2022, which is 16 years after the obligation was due!

“The NPA obeyed the court order and allowed BUA access and continued use of the facility from January 2018, when BUA secured the injunction, until June 2019, when it was decommissioned due to safety concerns raised by the company itself.

“In the 18 months between January 2018, when the company secured the court injunction and June 2019, BUA berthed 117 vessels comprising liquid and dry bulk cargos. This data refutes the claim that the NPA flouted court orders,” Mr Adedokun told PREMIUM TIMES.

However, BUA said NPA’s actions regarding the matter could have discouraged investments in Nigeria. “We must state clearly that this matter goes beyond BUA,” the company said in its response to the former NPA MD. “Had Ms. Usman’s actions been allowed to stand, it would have sent a disastrous signal that contracts in Nigeria are worthless, court orders are optional, and public institutions or individuals can act unilaterally without consequence.”