Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court in Abuja has summoned the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil), Heineken Lokpobiri, the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) and officials of the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) to appear in court today over a suit regarding allocation of oil fields in the Niger Delta.

The judge issued the summon after turning down an exparte motion seeking to restrain the ministers and NUPRC from allocating certain oil fields across the Niger Delta.

In a ruling, Justice Nwite refused the interim reliefs sought by two firms, Hi-Rev Oil Limited and Hi-Rev Exploration and Production Ltd, opting instead to place the respondents on notice to respond to the claims. “The respondents are hereby ordered by this honourable court to show cause why the application should not be granted,” Justice Nwite ruled.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/ CS/2678/2025, lists the AttorneyGeneral of the Federation (AGF) and the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) as the 2nd and 3rd respondents, respectively.

The oil firms, through a team of lawyers led by Ambrose Unaeze, had approached the court seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from selling, assigning, or allocating several oil fields pending the hearing of their interlocutory application.

Specifically, the applicants sought to stop the allocation of Yorla South (PPL 2A32 – OML 11) in Rivers State; Akiapiri (PPL 2A48 – OML 25) and Diebu Creek East (OML 32) in Bayelsa State; and Idiok (PPL 2A41 – OML 67) in Akwa Ibom State.

They argued that the fields were meant to serve as replacements for Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, earlier allocated to them but later withdrawn by the Federal Government. In four grounds supporting the application, Unaeze contended that the withdrawal of the original oil fields was unreasonable and in breach of a settlement agreement between the parties, which had been adopted by the court as a consent judgment.

He further argued that the companies had taken substantial steps toward the development of OPL 2002, including making financial commitments and securing regulatory approvals for a 50,000 barrels-per-day modular refinery, before their rights were threatened by the proposed allocation of the replacement oil fields to third parties through a public bid round.

In an affidavit supporting the motion, the companies’ Director, Chief Felix Ezeamama, stated that the firms won the bid for OPL 2002 in 2007, but the process was stalled following litigation instituted by Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC), then operator of OML 13.

He said the plaintiffs later sued the Federal Government over their inability to access the oil field, a dispute that culminated in an out-of-court settlement in 2015, with the terms adopted as a consent judgement of the court.

According to Ezeamama, the settlement affirmed the plaintiffs as the rightful winners of OPL 2002 and provided for the issuance of both an oil prospecting licence and a licence to establish a 50,000 BPD modular refinery at Iko Community, Eastern Obolo Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State.

He further disclosed that following the issuance of the licences by the then Department of Petroleum Resources (now NUPRC), the companies paid part of the required signature bonus, submitted detailed engineering designs for the refinery project, and received regulatory approval to proceed to the next phase of construction.

Ezeamama further revealed that a high-level stakeholders’ meeting chaired by a former Attorney-General of the Federation later proposed an alternative settlement, offering the plaintiffs either two oil fields from OPL 2002 or three marginal fields of their choice from the government’s basket under sole-risk terms.

He said the plaintiffs selected the Obuzo, Uzoaku, and Ofemini oil fields, which were approved, but later included in a marginal field bid round and allocated to other operators, leaving the plaintiffs without any replacement fields. The Director alleged that despite repeated assurances by the defendants to provide alternative oil fields of equivalent value, the matter remained unresolved for years.

He maintained that the plaintiffs are entitled to the allocation of Yorla South, Akiapiri, Diebu Creek East, and Idiok oil fields in line with the consent judgment, warning that failure to grant the application would occasion irreparable financial loss and undermine the authority of the court. He further accused the defendants of subjecting the companies to prolonged financial hardship and emotional distress through what he described as deliberate delays and broken undertakings.