Saturday, 20th April 2024
To guardian.ng
Search

I acted as facilitator in Malabu Oil dispute, says Adoke

By Joseph Onyekwere
30 May 2017   |   3:38 am
Former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN) has said he played a facilitator’s role in settling the dispute between the Federal Government and Malabu Oil and Gas Limited....

Mohammed Bello Adoke

Former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN) has said he played a facilitator’s role in settling the dispute between the Federal Government and Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, following the revocation of the OPL 245 oil block.

According to him, he acted to ensure that various contending parties arrived at an amicable settlement.Adoke, in a suit filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja, is challenging his prosecution by the current Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), over the issue.

He said his action in effecting the settlement of the dispute was motivated by the need to avoid a colossal cost to the Federal Government as awarded by the courts.

He stated that the Terms of Settlement upon which the Consent Judgment was predicated was executed as far back as November 30, 2006 to amicably settle Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/ 420/2003 and Appeal No:CA/A/99/M/06 brought by Malabu Oil and Gas Limited as Plaintiff/Appellants against the President and Commander in Chief, Federal Republic of Nigeria; the Federal Government of Nigeria; the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC); the Ministry of
Petroleum Resources; the Department of Petroleum Resources and Attorney General of the Federation as defendants /respondents.

In an affidavit in support of the originations summons deposed to by Oladapo Agboola of the Law Firm of Ade Okeaya-Inneh & Co, on behalf
of Adoke, “the role played by the Plaintiff as Minister of the Government of the Federation, acting on the directives and approvals
of the then President, Goodluck Jonathan was that of a facilitator of an amicable settlement between two disputing parties over a long standing dispute with obvious economic implications for the country.”

The plaintiff averred further that the decision to implement the terms of settlement was “largely informed by the magnitude of claims
against the federal government arising from the allocation of OPL 245 to Malabu among other issues.

In this article

0 Comments