Ruling on two separate applications filed by Shell Oil Exploration Nigeria Ltd and AGIP Oil seeking to set aside the order made by the Federal High Court Abuja on January 26, 2017, which granted temporary forfeiture of the Oil Prospective Licence (OPL 245) block to the federal government was yesterday stalled.

The ruling could not go on because of three fresh applications filed by Malabu Oil and Gas Limited seeking to be joined in the matter, as well as for an opportunity to be a party in the already heard applications filed by Shell and AGIP

Counsel to the company, Abdullahi Haruna, told the trial judge, Justice John Tsoho, that the applications had been served on parties and that they had all responded accordingly.

Haruna also told the court that the joinder application was aimed at reopening hearing to accommodate Malabu Oil on the applications made by Shell and AGIP, adding that the purpose “is to join us as respondents.”

In his reaction to the applications, AGIP’s lawyer Babatunde Fagbohunlu (SAN) and Muyiwa Balogun representing Shell, all opposed the application and urged the court to dismiss them summarily.

Opposing the application, AGIP said “it was frivolous and I urge court to dismiss it summarily from the bench.”
Fagbohunlu (SAN) argued that “when a court hears a matter and adjourns for ruling, party(ies) cannot pull back the hands of the clock.”

On its part, Shell’s lawyer, Balogun reminded the court that at the last adjourned date being February 27, “counsel to Malabu Oil drew the attention of the court to his applications that were yet to be filed and served” but that the court ruled that the proposed applications “should be in abeyance.

“By this applications, Malabu Oil is asking the court to sit on appeal over its own ruling” the Shell lawyer said even as he asked the court to dismiss the applications summarily.

Counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Johnson Ojogbane, did not file any application but rather left the issue for the court to decide.

“We did not file any application in respect of the application filed by Malabu Oil, the decision of the court will determine whether or not we will join issues with them,” the EFCC lawyer said.

However, Haruna, pursuant to Order 27 Rule 6 of the Federal High Court Rules filed what he described as “innocuous application” by way of motion on notice introducing a further affidavit (criminal charge filed against the applicants) by the federal government before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court Abuja.

Ruling, Justice Tsoho granted leave and deemed the further affidavit as properly filed.

Though Shell and AGIP had told the court not to accord any probate value to the further affidavit (criminal charge) because it was not yet filed when their applications were argued and date fixed for ruling.

However, after taking submissions of counsel, Justice Tsoho, who expressed dismay over the applications but said that even though Malabu’s application was irritating, however “in the interest of fair hearing, an application before a court must be heard.”

Consequently, the court adjourned ruling on Malabu’s application to March 17.
The court was to rule yesterday on the applications filed by AGIP and Shell seeking to discharge the order of the court made on January 26 2017.

SHELL and AGIP had told the court that Oil Prospective Licence (OPL 245) was an oil bloc that was validly allocated to them.
They insisted that the ex parte order asking them to forfeit OPL 245 to the federal government was unconstitutional and illegal.

According to the two oil exploration companies, the EFCC should have put them on notice in the interest of fair hearing rather than securing an ex parte order.
They argued that the EFCC could not say the order was to preserve the res (subject matter OPL 245) when in fact, the oil bloc was there and nothing was being done to tamper with it pending the determination of the matter.

But in a counter argument, EFCC said it derived its power to seek for the temporary possession of the licence from Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.

The anti graft agency insisted that the application and order it secured “did not offend the constitution in anyway.”
The EFCC maintained that it was wrong for the applicants to say that the matter be dismissed, pointing out that, “this is not a civil case to say that the EFCC should have come by way of motion on notice.”

“OPL 245 is a subject of criminal investigation and prosecution before this court. There is a criminal charge pending before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court.
“Activities surrounding OPL 245 is criminal; so, it is not just preserving the res (subject matter).

“It will be a serious disservice not only to the FG but Nigerians. We are filing a criminal charge against individuals and companies involved.
“We are stopping criminality from progressing in Nigeria and therefore insisted that the applications lacked merit.”
Consequently, the commission asked the court to rule that the order of January 26 was in order.

Source: THISDAY