Reps to wade into Dangote, NMDPRA face-off, summon disputants

The House of Representatives‘ Joint Committees on Petroleum Resources (Downstream and Midstream) have intervened in the fresh dispute between Dangote Refinery and the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA), summoning both parties and directing an immediate halt to public altercations.

The committees said the intervention was aimed at preventing an escalation of tensions capable of destabilising Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector, which they noted had only recently begun to experience relative stability.

Speaking after an emergency meeting of the committees, chaired by Ikenga Ugochinyere and Henry Okogie, the lawmakers said the meeting was convened in response to mounting concerns, allegations and counter-allegations involving the Dangote Group and the industry regulator.

Mr Ugochinyere said the lawmakers were compelled to act swiftly in view of the delicate state of the sector, particularly as government and industry players work to manage supply, pricing and regulation in the post-subsidy environment.

He said the committees had resolved to invite the President of the Dangote Group, Aliko Dangote, alongside the leadership of the NMDPRA, to appear before it and formally present their grievances and explanations.

According to him, the National Assembly can only intervene effectively if it has a clear understanding of the issues driving the dispute.

“The key issue that necessitated this emergency meeting was the growing tension that has returned to the downstream sector as a result of concerns and allegations raised by Alhaji Aliko Dangote against the NMDPRA,” he said.

Mr Ugochinyere explained that the joint committees intend to conduct a swift inquiry and reach resolutions within days, stressing that legislative intervention would be impartial and guided by the national interest.

As part of measures to de-escalate the situation, the committees appealed to both sides to suspend media comments and public accusations while the House carries out its engagement.

“We resolved to plead with the contending parties to cease fire, especially media comments, so that the situation does not escalate further,” Mr Ugochinyere said.

He added that the committees were well-positioned to address the issues permanently, noting that petitions had already been submitted raising critical concerns within the industry.

Some of the petitions, he disclosed, relate to the issuance of import licences and questions over whether domestic refineries have sufficient capacity to meet Nigeria’s daily petroleum consumption.

“These are serious issues. Some relate to import licences, others to whether local refineries can produce enough to satisfy national demand, which the investigation being undertaken by the committee will resolve,” he said.

Mr Ugochinyere assured that the engagement with Dangote, the NMDPRA and other industry players would provide clarity and enable the House to propose lasting solutions.

He reiterated the committee’s call for restraint, urging both regulators and operators to suspend further accusations until the legislative process is concluded.

The House intervention comes amid growing public concern over allegations by the Dangote Refinery group against NMDPRA, regarding actions that undermine local refining, particularly the issuance of import licences to third parties despite the country’s domestic refining capacity.

READ ALSO: Dangote alleges economic sabotage, sleaze at NMDPRA, demands investigation of chief executive

The refinery argued that these regulatory decisions weaken local investment and destabilise fuel supply. NMDPRA, on its part, defended the issuance of licences, stating that Dangote Refinery has not yet reached full production capacity to meet national demand, and that import permits are necessary to maintain market stability and fuel availability.

The tension has previously played out in court. Dangote Refinery filed a ₦100bn lawsuit against NMDPRA, challenging the validity of import licences issued to other marketers.

The suit was later withdrawn in mid-2025 without a ruling on the merits. Despite the withdrawal, both parties have continued to engage in public exchanges, prompting legislative intervention.