Group urges FG to prosecute Seplat for breaching immigration law

Make A Difference Initiative (MAD) has applauded the Federal Government for investigating allegations of racism and nepotism against the Chief Executive Officer of Seplat Energy, Roger Brown, by employees of the company.

The human rights and good governance advocacy group also demanded prosecution of Mr. Brown and the Board of Seplat Energy for conspiracy to flout the country’s immigration law.

Speaking at a press conference in Abuja, the Executive Director of MAD, Lemmy Ughegbe, also commended the Federal Government for revoking Brown’s Work Permit, Visa and Residence Permit for breaching the country’s laws.

The Ministry of Interior had written the management of Seplat Energy on the outcome of its investigation over the allegations, but Brown refused to appear before the ministry for defence, despite several invitations.

“Investigation and records in the ministry also revealed that Brown was in possession of Combined Expatriate Residence Permit and Aliens Card (CERPAC) that was not based on validly-issued Expatriate Quota approved by the Ministry of Interior, resulting in the violation of relevant Immigration Laws and Regulations.

“As a result, the minister has determined that Brown’s continued stay in Nigeria is contrary to national interest,” the ministry stated in the said letter.

MAD also applauded the interim order of the Federal High Court, Lagos, which barred Brown from parading himself as, or continuing to operate as the CEO of Seplat or working for Seplat in any other capacity, pending the determination of the suit brought against him by shareholders of Seplat over the indictment for racism by the Federal Government.

“It is also right that the court also restrained the Chairman, Board of Directors, Seplat Energy, Basil Omiyi, and all the Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) under him from continuing to run the affairs of the company in an illegal, unfair, prejudicial and oppressive manner, pending the hearing and determination of the petitioner’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.”