The dispute between Dangote Petroleum Refinery and the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) has taken a fresh turn as both parties returned to court over allegations surrounding propane quality, distribution and regulatory oversight. The face-off played out at the Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday, September 9, 2026, with NMDPRA asking the court to discharge an interim order preventing it from interfering with operations at the refinery.
The regulator argued that the order obtained by Dangote Refinery on August 31 was based on alleged misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. NMDPRA told the court that it suspended propane loading and truck-out operations after investigations allegedly uncovered the diversion of propane-laden trucks to unlicensed customers and concerns over the blending of propane at some LPG plants. The authority said laboratory tests from three plants showed propane content above the permitted level, prompting a wider investigation into the source and movement of the product.
NMDPRA further alleged that its reconciliation exercise uncovered major discrepancies in truck-out records. According to the regulator, one off-taker lifted 25 trucks of propane from the Dangote refinery on August 20 and 22, but the intended recipient reportedly confirmed receiving only six, leaving 19 trucks unaccounted for. The authority also raised concerns about another 52 trucks reportedly loaded between May and August, claiming the stated recipient confirmed that none of the consignments were received. NMDPRA said the alleged diversion raised serious public safety concerns because the propane could have been used for LPG blending outside approved standards.
Dangote Refinery, however, strongly rejected the regulator’s position. The refinery’s spokesman, Anthony Chiejina, argued that NMDPRA officials stationed at the facility had inspected and certified the propane before it was purchased and transported by independent off-takers. He questioned why the refinery should be held responsible for what happened to the product after it left its premises, describing the regulator’s attempt to interfere with the refinery’s operations as an abuse of power. Dangote maintained that the regulator should produce evidence supporting its claims, particularly since the product had allegedly been inspected and certified before leaving the refinery.
Following arguments from both sides, Justice Akintayo Aluko extended the interim order restraining NMDPRA from shutting down, restricting, disrupting or otherwise interfering with the refinery’s operations. The order will remain in force until the substantive application is heard and determined or until further directives are issued by the court. The judge also directed that the case file be returned to the registry for assignment to a regular court by the Administrative Judge, leaving the regulatory dispute between Dangote Refinery and NMDPRA unresolved for now.
source: punch
