The actions of an organisation that blatantly refused to honour its obligations while exploiting access to higher authorities reflect the impunity with which many Big Companies operate in Nigeria. Such conduct not only undermines the rule of law but also reeks of vindictiveness — an attempt to smear the reputation of individuals who serve the nation with integrity and diligence.
In its latest statement, entitled: “Flouting Contractual Obligations, Defying Court Orders and Disregarding Arbitration: The Facts Behind Hadiza Bala Usman’s Abuse of Office as NPA MD,” the BUA Group accused the former Managing Director of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) of disobeying court orders and violating the terms of the agreement with the company. Again, this statement peddles half-truths and outright falsehoods.
The first point to note is that contrary to the company Chairman’s claim in his article that “One day, we woke up to a letter stating that the concession had been revoked…there was no warning, no issue, no conflict,” Ms Bala Usman has provided evidence that the BUA received a series of default notices and warnings before the notice of termination was served on the company. This clearly shows that the Chairman lied when he said, “…There is no issue, no warning and no conflict.”
|
|
Instead of apologising to the public and to Ms Usman for the false statement he made, his organisation brought forth another statement brandishing a new set of lies and misleading information regarding their breach of contractual obligation to the NPA.
BUA’s latest statement claimed that the NPA failed in its obligation but the Authority was not required to rebuild the berths. On the contrary, this was part of the concessionaires’ obligations.
|
|
|
|---|
It is also curious that the company’s claim to lack security did not prevent it and all other concessionaires from making full commercial use of the facility at any time.
The claim that the Authority disobeyed the order of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, which granted an injunction to BUA, is also untrue!
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.
The total number of vessels BUA berthed also indicates that it made full commercial use of the terminal despite the poor quay walls and low draft.
However, on 16 May 2019, BUA Ports and Terminals Limited wrote to the NPA informing it that the “jetty is in a state of total dilapidation and urgent need of repair or reconstruction…. The company further stated in the letter that “our engineers have advised us that the jetty is liable to collapse at any moment…”
Upon receiving this letter, the former Managing Director sought the advice of the Engineering Department of the NPA.
The Department advised her office that the situation described in BUA’s letter raised serious safety concerns. It went further to recommend that the Authority should decommission the jetty pending the submission and approval of the reconstruction details. We took this action to prevent accidents, especially since any incident would affect the adjoining quays and facilities of other concessionaires.
The NPA has a duty to ensure the safety of lives and properties on its facilities, and this was what it did with the decommissioning of the jetty based on the professional advice of the Engineering Department.
Contrary to BUA’s claim that the former MD, “against the advice of her agency, unilaterally decommissioned the berths…,” at no point did the management take any decision without the advice of the relevant department. For the records, even the termination notice issued to the company emanated from recommendations of the Legal Department of the NPA.
Ms Bala Usman also reiterates that BUA’s access to former President Muhammadu Buhari and his subsequent intervention was based on the manipulation of facts and misinformation. How do you factually justify the continued refusal to comply with a contractual obligation which was due to commence in 90 days for 10 years?
It is also false that the NPA did not attend the mediation meetings called by the Office of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Staffers of the Legal Department of the Authority represented the Authority at the meeting.
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!
For the records, the NPA diligently pursued the arbitration process (which it initiated despite the delay by BUA) with BUA at every material time. It is, therefore, unfortunate that the company would accuse this same management of disregarding the process.
The foregoing facts impugn BUA’s serial attempts to mislead the public and present itself as a victim in the media, while in reality, it operates with the air of a conglomerate that considers itself above the laws of the land.
Ms Hadiza Bala Usman’s tenure as managing director of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) was driven solely by a commitment to Nigeria’s best interests. Guided by this principle, she insisted on the strict enforcement of all contractual agreements — standards to which she and her management team held the NPA itself accountable.
The actions of an organisation that blatantly refused to honour its obligations while exploiting access to higher authorities reflect the impunity with which many Big Companies operate in Nigeria. Such conduct not only undermines the rule of law but also reeks of vindictiveness — an attempt to smear the reputation of individuals who serve the nation with integrity and diligence.
Niran Adedokun is the media and communications adviser to Ms Hadiza Bala Usman.
