OPL 245 Clash: Fagbemi Accuses Atiku of Self-Interest as Oil Deal Row Deepens

Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, has strongly criticized former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar over his remarks on the federal government’s resolution of the long-standing OPL 245 dispute. Fagbemi described Atiku’s objections as being driven by “self-serving interests” rather than genuine concern for Nigeria’s welfare.

The controversy stems from the federal government’s recent announcement that it had successfully concluded a settlement agreement involving energy giants Eni and Nigerian Agip Exploration Limited (NAEL). The government presented the deal as a major breakthrough, describing it as a milestone capable of unlocking economic value and restoring investor confidence in Nigeria’s oil sector.

However, Atiku dismissed the development, calling it “political theatrics” and insisting that the dispute is far from resolved. He argued that ongoing legal proceedings still surround the oil block and warned that key stakeholders were excluded from the negotiation process. According to him, celebrating such an agreement prematurely reflects recklessness rather than leadership.

In a detailed response, Fagbemi rejected Atiku’s claims, insisting that the agreement represents a legitimate and hard-earned resolution to a dispute that has lasted nearly three decades. He expressed concern over what he described as persistent attempts to undermine the deal, noting that such criticisms ignore legal realities and the broader national interest.

According to the attorney-general, the OPL 245 saga dates back to 1998 when the oil block was originally awarded to Malabu Oil and Gas Limited. The license was later revoked in 2001 and reassigned to Shell Nigeria Ultra-Deep Limited in 2002, sparking a complex web of disputes, litigation, and international scrutiny that dragged on for years.

Fagbemi explained that a major turning point came in 2011, when a resolution agreement involving the federal government, Malabu, Shell, and Eni was reached. Under that arrangement, Malabu relinquished its claims to the oil block in exchange for compensation, allowing Shell and its partners to proceed with development.

He further emphasized that the transactions surrounding OPL 245 have been subjected to extensive legal examination in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy. In all instances, he said, no criminal wrongdoing was established against the companies involved.

One of the key justifications for the federal government’s recent action, according to Fagbemi, was the need to avert a potential financial crisis. He revealed that Nigeria was facing a possible liability exceeding $2 billion due to arbitration proceedings initiated by Eni entities at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). By resolving the dispute, the government was able to avoid significant financial exposure.

Fagbemi also clarified that the arbitration process was not about ownership disputes within Malabu but rather focused on whether Nigeria had violated its treaty obligations to foreign investors. He stressed that individuals currently claiming interests in Malabu neither participated in the arbitration nor had legal standing to intervene.

Citing a recent Court of Appeal judgment in Nigerian Agip Exploration Limited v. Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd (2025), the attorney-general noted that Malabu’s legal challenge was dismissed as statute-barred and an abuse of court process. This, he argued, further reinforces the legitimacy of the government’s position.

Beyond the legal arguments, Fagbemi highlighted the economic potential of OPL 245. He stated that full development of the oil block could add approximately 150,000 barrels per day to Nigeria’s production capacity, alongside significant gas export opportunities tied to liquefied natural gas (LNG). The deal, he said, would boost government revenue, strengthen energy security, and position Nigeria more competitively in the global energy market.

Despite these assurances, public reaction remains divided. Supporters of the government view the resolution as a pragmatic step toward ending costly disputes and unlocking dormant assets. Critics, however, remain wary, questioning transparency, timing, and the broader political implications.

Fagbemi urged Nigerians to approach criticisms of the deal with caution, warning against narratives that could derail progress for narrow political or personal gain. He maintained that the resolution ultimately serves the collective interest and should be judged on its long-term benefits rather than political sentiment.

As the debate continues, the OPL 245 case once again underscores the complex intersection of politics, law, and economic policy in Nigeria’s oil sector—an arena where decisions often carry far-reaching consequences.