GHL: How FBN’s Recklessness Almost Killed 93 on Oil Rig

In response to FBN's statement last night, General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) gave additional information about how First Bank of Nigeria's nonpayment of outstanding requests in accordance with the terms of the contract caused an international incident in 2023 that almost killed ninety-three people working on the oil rig.

The accounts that GHL submitted as part of her Right of Reply included these specifics.

Nonetheless, the answer came after FBN made a public statement accusing GHL of repeatedly diverting cash.

GHL claims that on October 7, 2023, the drilling rig Blackford Dolphin, carrying 93 people, ran out of food, gasoline, and other essential supplies. This was a serious scenario that nearly called for the declaration of MAYDAY.

During the potentially fatal event, both the Managing Director and Executive Director of the bank were reportedly abroad while the current Managing Director/Chief Executive, Olusegun Alebiosu, who was then the Chief Risk Officer (CRO), acted for the Managing Director, when GHL brought the matter to his urgent attention.

Alebiosu, GHL stated, then worked the phone, calling suppliers and service providers one after the other and promised to pay within three days.

Based on FBN’s assurances, the service providers made emergency supplies, which the payment never came.

However, in a bid to ensure safety of life and continuing security at 75KM Offshore Nigeria, GHL entered an Irrevocable Third-Party Payment Order with one of the Off-takers to pay the suppliers directly, a move that helped to stabilise the operation.

Regrettably, FBN has continued to refer to this intervention by GHL as diversion of funds without providing any evidence, and after the latter had subsequently provided the bank with evidence of the payments made to suppliers.

GHL insisted that all contracts and invoices were duly vetted and paid by FBN through their Credit and Risk teams, therefore, rendering any claims of fund diversion laughable.

Furthermore, FBN’s repeated failures to effect timely payment for invoices within the contractual framework of five days became 70 days or not at all, in a clear breach of its tripartite obligations.
"The Bank shall, where GHL has satisfied all conditions precedent to disbursement under the Facility Agreement, disburse all or part of the Facility Amount to GHL not later than 5 (five) Business Days after GHL makes a utilisation request in accordance with the terms of the Facility Agreement," the agreement's letters emphasised.

However, GHL stated that it paid the suppliers and took action to protect Nigeria from an international crisis offshore Nigeria and to save the 93 people on board the rig, the most of whom were foreigners who had started contacting their own governments and embassies.

"We will meet FBN in court with Daily Reports and log details to debunk this continuing misinformation of diversion," the company declared.
Also, on the abuse of court process and failure to comply with a valid court order, FBN claimed it went to court on a different matter with regards to the Facility Agreement.

Justice Ambrose L. Allagoa, it was further learnt, had given his judgement after hearing both sides on the Facility Agreement, amongst other issues, on December 12, 2024.

His judgement read in part: “That an order is granted, restraining the Respondent (FBN) either by itself, or acting through its servants, agents, assigns, privies, affiliates howsoever described, including any persons claiming under its authority from making any calls or demands, or taking any steps whatsoever to enforce any security, receivables, instrument, finance documents or assets of the Applicant (GHL) which have been charged as security for the facility agreements in respect of the Applicant’s operation of OML 120, including but not limited to the side letter, and the amended and restated agreements between the Applicant and the Respondent pending the hearing and determination of the arbitration proceedings between the Applicant and the Respondent brought pursuant to Clause 12(c) of the Agreement between the Applicant and the Respondent dated 29th May 2021.”

The bank, then went to Justice D. Dipeolu of the same Federal High Court on December 30, 2024, with same lawyers, without disclosing the relevant judgment to the learned Justice, to obtain a Mareva injunction Exparte freezing order against GHL and individual directors, who did not sign personal guarantees and thus not personally liable.

GHL, questioned why a 130-year old blue-chip financial institution in the cast of FBN, which claimed to be committed to good governance and rule of law, could behave in such a manner.
GHL also questioned the bank's haste to acquire inexpensive points for social media use.

"Why not place GHL on notice if FBN was so certain of its facts? An Exparte: Why? To avoid being subjudiced, we will not comment further and will leave this to the Justices of the Federal High Court to decide," the corporation insisted.

In response to FBN's assertions that it wanted to designate an Independent Asset Manager to advance corporate governance, GHL clarified that the bank had simply aimed to designate a firm that it may terminate at any moment to "take over GHL's business, offices, and operations within 90 days" of further payments.

GHL rejected the proposal, but the bank rejected its counteroffer of a Joint Operating Committee. This led to the current standoff, which GHL said it ultimately weaponised and turned into a public spectacle by publishing the Exparte Mareva Freezing Orders.

GHL resolutely opposed such bullying, stating that FBN's persistent misrepresentation, which "failed to debunk or deny the foundational material facts and seeking to eat their cake and have it," necessitated the use of its second Right of Reply.

However, FBN has not disputed the subrogation Memorandum of Understanding or the upfront advantages it received from GHL's assistance in any of these cases.

"Everything will be fine if FBN fulfils their responsibilities," GHL continued.