How FBN’s Recklessness Almost Killed 93 on Oil Rig - GHL

Spread the love

By Reporter

General Hydrocarbon Limited has denied First Bank’s allegation that the company diverted funds, but insisted that, suppliers needed to be paid to save lives and restore the project.

GHL has also accused FBN of wanting to have “…the best of both worlds,” by hoping to eat its cake and also have it.

GHL stated these in response to FBN’s statement last night, which provided more details on how First Bank of Nigeria’s failure to pay its pending requests according to contract terms led to an international incident in 2023, which nearly claimed the lives of 93 persons working on the oil rig.

GHL said it’s response is as a result of repeated rehashed allegations of diversion of funds levelled against their company in a public statement issued by Femi Otedola and FBN.

The statement disclosed that on October 7, 2023, the drilling rig, Blackford Dolphin, ran out of fuel, food and other critical supplies with 93 persons on board, a critical situation, which almost warranted declaring MAYDAY.

During the life-threatening incident, both the Managing Director and Executive Director of the bank were reportedly abroad while the current Managing Director/Chief Executive, Olusegun Alebiosu, who was then the Chief Risk Officer (CRO), acted for the Managing Director, when GHL brought the matter to his urgent attention.

Alebiosu, GHL stated, then worked the phone, calling suppliers and service providers one after the other and promised to pay within three days.

Based on FBN’s assurances, the service providers made emergency supplies, which the payment never came.

However, in a bid to ensure safety of life and continuing security at 75KM Offshore Nigeria, GHL entered an Irrevocable Third-Party Payment Order with one of the Off-takers to pay the suppliers directly, a move that helped to stabilise the operation.

Regrettably, FBN has continued to refer to this intervention by GHL as diversion of funds without providing any evidence, and after the latter had subsequently provided the bank with evidence of the payments made to suppliers.

GHL insisted that all contracts and invoices were duly vetted and paid by FBN through their Credit and Risk teams, therefore, rendering any claims of fund diversion laughable.

Furthermore, FBN’s repeated failures to effect timely payment for invoices within the contractual framework of five days became 70 days or not at all, in a clear breach of its tripartite obligations.

For emphasis, the letters of the agreement stipulated that, “The Bank shall, where GHL has satisfied all conditions precedent to disbursement under the Facility Agreement, disburse all of or part of the Facility Amount to GHL not later than 5 (five) Business Days after GHL makes a utilisation request in accordance with the terms of the Facility Agreement.”

GHL, however, insisted that it actually paid the suppliers, and acted to save the 93 souls onboard the rig, most of whom were foreign nationals, who had begun contacting their embassies and home governments, and to save Nigeria from an international incident offshore Nigeria.

The company stated that, “We will meet FBN in court with Daily Reports and log details to debunk this continuing misinformation of diversion.”

Also, on the abuse of court process and failure to comply with a valid court order, FBN claimed it went to court on a different matter with regards to the Facility Agreement.

Justice Ambrose L. Allagoa, it was further learnt, had given his judgement after hearing both sides on the Facility Agreement, amongst other issues, on December 12, 2024.

His judgement read in part: “That an order is granted, restraining the Respondent (FBN) either by itself, or acting through its servants, agents, assigns, privies, affiliates howsoever described, including any persons claiming under its authority from making any calls or demands, or taking any steps whatsoever to enforce any security, receivables, instrument, finance documents or assets of the Applicant (GHL) which have been charged as security for the facility agreements in respect of the Applicant’s operation of OML 120, including but not limited to the side letter, and the amended and restated agreements between the Applicant and the Respondent pending the hearing and determination of the arbitration proceedings between the Applicant and the Respondent brought pursuant to Clause 12(c) of the Agreement between the Applicant and the Respondent dated 29th May 2021.”

The bank, then went to Justice D. Dipeolu of the same Federal High Court on December 30, 2024, with same lawyers, without disclosing the relevant judgment to the learned Justice, to obtain a Mareva injunction Exparte freezing order against GHL and individual directors, who did not sign personal guarantees and thus not personally liable.

GHL, questioned why a 130-year old blue-chip financial institution in the cast of FBN, which claimed to be committed to good governance and rule of law, could behave in such a manner.

GHL also wondered why the bank was in such a hurry to score cheap points to use on the social media.

“If FBN was so sure of its facts why not put GHL on notice? Why an Exparte? We leave this to the Justices of the Federal High Court to decide on this matter and we will not make any further comment to avoid being subjudice,” the company maintained.

Disputing FBN’s claims that it sought to appoint an Independent Asset Manager to promote corporate governance, GHL explained that the bank had only sought to appoint a company that it could fire at any time to “take over GHL’s business, offices and operations within 90 days” of further disbursement.

GHL declined the idea, but counter-offered a Joint Operating Committee with FBN, which the bank also refused, resulting in the current impasse, which GHL claimed it eventually weaponised and made a public spectacle with the publication of the Exparte Mareva Freezing Orders.

GHL stood its ground against such bullying, adding that its second Right of Reply became necessary in view of FBN’s continued misstatement, having “failed to debunk or deny the foundational material facts and seeking to eating their cake and having it.”

In all of these, however, FBN has not denied the subrogation MoU and the benefits it got upfront from GHL’s intervention.

“FBN should meet their obligations and all will be well,” GHL added.