Oil Licensing Controversy: NNPC Response Diversionary, OGPF Says

The Oil & Gas Professionals Forum has rejected the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL)’s response to allegations surrounding the recent marginal field licensing exercise, describing it as misleading and diversionary.

The group maintained that the corporation failed to address key questions involving alleged conflicts of interest, beneficiaries of the bid process and the performance of the current NNPC leadership under its Group Chief Executive Officer, Bayo Ojulari.

OGPF had on August 2 called for the removal of Ojulari and the Chief Executive of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), Oritsemeyiwa Eyesan, over what it described as underperformance in the oil sector, questionable transactions and controversies surrounding the award of oil blocks.

The group had alleged that individuals close to Ojulari benefited from the recently concluded licensing round in which 31 companies emerged successful for 37 oil and gas blocks.

The allegations have not been independently verified.

Responding to the earlier claims, NNPC maintained that it had no authority over the allocation of oil blocks.

The company said the Petroleum Industry Act 2021 placed responsibility for licensing rounds and allocation of upstream petroleum assets squarely on the NUPRC.

“NNPC Limited, since its incorporation, has operated strictly as a commercial entity and holds no regulatory or allocative authority,” the corporation stated.

In a fresh statement signed by its convener, Ayodele Momoh, OGPF said NNPC’s response failed to address the central allegations.

“The NNPC publication attempts to distract from the substance of OGPF’s concerns by focusing on peripheral matters while failing to directly confront the questions put forward,” the group said.

It alleged that at least two beneficiaries of the exercise were close associates of the NNPC boss.

“One of the awardees holds the dubious distinction of being the first beneficiary of an FTSA award granted by Mr. Ojulari,” OGPF alleged.

The forum argued that such relationships, if established, raised legitimate questions about conflict of interest.

“OGPF rejects any attempt to treat these connections as coincidental,” it said.

“Where relationships and roles intersect in bid evaluation and awards, the outcome raises legitimate questions of conflict of interest and private gain.”

OGPF also faulted NNPC’s emphasis on production performance, saying improvements in output did not answer the governance questions it had raised.

“The performance narrative does not answer the accountability question,” the group said.

It claimed that reported growth of six per cent in crude oil production and five per cent in gas production between April 2025 and August 2026 remained inadequate when compared with stated production targets.

“If the stated ambition is three million barrels within two years, then the current pace cannot be treated as grounds for celebration,” OGPF said.

The group maintained that NNPC’s leadership should be assessed against its stated targets rather than marginal improvements.

“Results must be evaluated against targets, and leadership must take decisive action to close the gap, rather than seeking applause,” it added.

The forum also rejected NNPC’s claims of transparency, alleging that the current system could preserve patronage and favour politically connected interests.

It claimed that NNPC under the present leadership risked becoming “a channel of patronage for a narrow set of interests.”

OGPF said it would continue to demand explanations over the licensing exercise and other governance issues in the petroleum sector.

“OGPF is not persuaded by diversionary messaging, and OGPF remains unconvinced by the record observed over the past 18 months,” the group said.