A regulatory dispute between the Dangote Petroleum Refinery and the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) over propane quality and distribution has escalated to the Federal High Court in Lagos.
The disagreement centres on NMDPRA’s directive suspending propane loading and truck-out activities at the refinery, with the regulator alleging irregularities in the handling and distribution of the product while Dangote accused the agency of exceeding its powers.
The matter came before the Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday, where NMDPRA asked the court to discharge an interim order preventing it from enforcing the suspension.
The court had on August 31 ordered NMDPRA, its officials, agents and representatives not to enter, seal, shut down, restrict access to, obstruct, suspend, disrupt, inspect, supervise or sanction the refinery’s operations pending the determination of the substantive application.
Why NMDPRA Suspended Propane Operations
NMDPRA, through its lawyer, Matthew Burkaa, argued that the interim order was obtained through alleged misrepresentation and failure to disclose relevant information.
The regulator also questioned the jurisdiction of Justice Akintayo Aluko to grant the order, arguing that Dangote Refinery had not filed the required motion on notice when its ex-parte application was considered.
According to NMDPRA, its decision to suspend propane loading and truck-out operations followed an investigation into alleged diversion of propane-filled trucks to unidentified and unlicensed customers, as well as alleged unauthorised blending of propane at some LPG facilities.
The regulator said laboratory analysis of LPG samples collected from three plants — Selai, Tewa and Ameego Pago — showed propane levels above 50 per cent.
NMDPRA maintained that industry requirements provide for propane to account for no more than 20 per cent of an LPG blend, with butane making up roughly 80 per cent.
Representatives of the three plants were subsequently invited to discuss the findings and, according to the regulator, identified Sublime Oil and Gas Limited as the source of their propane. Sublime is an off-taker from Dangote Refinery.
The development prompted NMDPRA to carry out what it described as a wider reconciliation and material-balance exercise involving facilities that produce propane and plants involved in LPG blending.
.
advertisement
The regulator further alleged that its officials were denied access when they attempted to inspect propane loading activities and relevant records at the Dangote refinery on August 24.
NMDPRA subsequently issued a notice of potential non-compliance and directed the refinery to halt propane loading and truck-out activities while the investigation continued and additional safety measures were considered.
Regulator Alleges 19 Propane Trucks Were Unaccounted For
NMDPRA told the court that its review of truck-out manifests allegedly uncovered significant discrepancies.
It claimed Sublime Oil and Gas lifted 25 propane trucks from Dangote Refinery on August 20 and 22 for delivery to Navgas/Agasco, but Navgas reportedly confirmed receiving only six of the consignments.
The regulator therefore said 19 trucks could not be accounted for.
NMDPRA also cited another transaction involving an off-taker in Delta State, alleging that 52 trucks were loaded between May and August 2026 for delivery to Navgas, while Navgas reportedly said none of those consignments arrived.
The agency argued that the alleged diversion of propane to unauthorised or unlicensed customers created serious safety concerns because the product could be used for LPG blending outside approved specifications.
It further claimed that propane produced by Dangote and other gas-processing facilities had a vapour pressure of around 13 bar, compared with the maximum seven-bar pressure it said was required for a standard propane-butane LPG mixture.
According to the regulator, the higher-pressure product could increase the risk of explosions at LPG facilities that were not designed to handle such pressure.
Dangote Rejects Regulator’s Position
Dangote Group spokesman Anthony Chiejina rejected NMDPRA’s allegations and maintained that the regulator had inspected and certified the propane before it left the refinery.
Chiejina questioned why Dangote should be held responsible for a truck operated by an independent company after the product had been inspected and approved by NMDPRA.
He also accused the regulator of abusing its authority, following an earlier attempt by officials to seal the plant.
Chiejina further argued that Dangote Refinery could not be responsible for what independent buyers did with products after purchasing and transporting them.
He challenged NMDPRA to produce its records and distinguish between any alleged problem at the refinery and what may have happened after products were collected by off-takers.
Court Extends Interim Protection
At Wednesday’s hearing, counsel to Dangote Refinery, Wale Akoni, SAN, referred the court to NMDPRA’s counter-affidavit filed in response to the refinery’s motion on notice.
Akoni requested a short adjournment to allow him to respond, explaining that he had only received the counter-affidavit in court that same day.
Burkaa did not object but stressed the urgency of the case because of the safety concerns raised by the regulator.
Justice Aluko, however, said he could not assign another hearing date because he was sitting as a vacation judge and the court’s annual vacation was due to end on Friday.
The judge said the case file would have to return to the registry so that the administrative judge could determine which regular court would handle the matter and fix a date.
Justice Aluko subsequently extended the interim order that prevents NMDPRA from interfering with the refinery’s operations.
The order will remain in force until the substantive motion is heard and determined or until the court issues another directive.
The case file was also returned to the registry for assignment to the regular court by the administrative judge.
For now, the interim protection means NMDPRA remains restricted from shutting down, suspending or otherwise disrupting Dangote Refinery’s operations while the court considers the wider dispute.
The substantive case will determine the competing arguments over NMDPRA’s regulatory action, the quality and handling of propane, and the allegations concerning the movement of propane trucks.