The Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday barred Oluseye Opasanya, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), from representing General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) in its ongoing suit against the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) and three others.
In his ruling, the judge, Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa, said Mr Opasanya’s appointment by a purported receiver, Seyi Akinwunmi, assigned by AMCON, violated an existing court order restraining the defendants from taking any action against GHL.
|
|
Mr Lewis-Allagoa noted that Abiodun Layonu, also a SAN, who filed the suit on behalf of GHL in September, remains the company’s valid legal representative.
The judge noted that the 23 September, court order restraining AMCON and its agents “continues to subsist until otherwise determined” and must be obeyed.
|
|
|---|
He further spotlighted a conflict of interest, noting that Mr Opasanya is affiliated with Olaniwun Ajayi LP, the law firm representing AMCON.
The judge also referenced another lawyer, Bidemi Ademola-Bello, also SAN, who had undertaken to abide by the court’s orders but subsequently filed a separate action before another judge, suppressing key information.
Mr Lewis-Allagoa ruled that the appointment of any lawyer in breach of court orders would not be recognised.
“The position of the law is very clear that a subsisting order of the court of competent jurisdiction must not be disobeyed and continues to subsist until otherwise determined,” the judge stated. “It is therefore in the interest of justice that Mr Opasanya, SAN, should not represent the claimant/applicant in this suit.”
The judge adjourned the matter until 30 January 2026 for the hearing of pending applications.
Background
The case revolves around Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) 120 and 121, previously part of a structured loan-recovery arrangement involving First Bank of Nigeria, Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept Limited, and GHL.
Under the agreement, GHL was authorised to operate the assets and apply production revenues toward repayment of a decade-old, $490 million non-performing loan.
AMCON and First Bank later alleged operational and financial misconduct by GHL’s former management, including revenue diversion, unpaid contractors, and risks of asset shutdown.
To protect the assets, AMCON appointed a receiver under Sections 34 and 48 of the AMCON Act, effectively suspending the powers of the company’s directors.
The dispute over legal representation has stalled contempt proceedings filed by GHL against AMCON, which sought to enforce earlier interim orders restraining the agency from interfering with GHL’s assets.
Legal battles across courts
The dispute has spanned multiple courts. In December 2024, First Bank obtained orders freezing over $225 million in assets linked to GHL and its majority owner, media executive Nduka Obaigbena.
In March, the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt dismissed claims of crude oil diversion by GHL, but the Court of Appeal overturned that judgement in September, directing crude oil proceeds be paid into an interest-bearing escrow account.
The ongoing Lagos suit seeks to restrain AMCON from enforcing its receivership, reflecting a complex legal battle over Nigeria’s oil assets and the management of non-performing loans.
GHL’s role
GHL was brought in to manage OMLs 120 and 121 following federal government approval in 2021, after First Bank’s loan to Atlantic Energy Drilling Concepts became non-performing.
According to Mr Obaigbena, GHL’s mandate was to develop the assets and share profits with First Bank, though he alleged the bank frustrated the arrangement with delayed disbursements and new conditions.
A tripartite agreement between GHL, First Bank, and AMCON formalised the arrangement, assigning GHL responsibility for asset management and revenue allocation toward repayment of the loan.
Receivership and controversy
AMCON’s appointment of Mr Opasanya as receiver/manager in September effectively suspended the directors’ powers.
However, the dispute over legal representation has prevented full enforcement of the receivership.
The court’s ruling on Monday clarifies who is legally authorised to represent GHL as the case continues.
