Malabu Sues FG Over OPL 245 Split, Demands ₦1 Trillion Damages By Shalom Oludele 

Malabu Sues FG Over OPL 245 Split, Demands ₦1 Trillion Damages

By Shalom Oludele 

Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd has filed a new motion contesting the Federal Government’s move to divide the oil block into four separate assets.

In the case marked Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/871/2026, filed on Monday, May 25, 2026, by a legal team headed by Dr. R.O. Atabo (SAN), Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd maintains that its rights over OPL 245 remain valid and subsisting, and that the government’s recent actions are unconstitutional, unlawful, and without legal basis.

Malabu wants the court to rule that the government’s actions were unlawful, to cancel the agreements in question, to stop any further interference, and to award ₦1 trillion in damages for what it calls “an unlawful breach of its rights.”

President of Nigeria, the Attorney-General of the Federation, and the Minister of Petroleum Resources are named as the first, second, and third defendants respectively in the suit.

Among Malabu’s requests is a declaration that the executive actions of the first and third respondents—splitting OPL 245 into four assets to be managed by Shell Nigeria Ultra-Deep Limited, Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company Ltd, Nigerian Agip Exploration Company Ltd, and NNPC Limited through the OPL 245 Resolution Agreement signed around 5 March 2026—were illegal and an unlawful use of executive power while the applicant’s rights in OPL 245 were still valid.

Malabu is also seeking a declaration that the first and third respondents lack the authority under the Petroleum Industry Act 2021 or any other law to grant concurrent exclusive possessory rights over OPL 245 to any other party while the applicant’s exclusive rights remain in force.

The company further asks for a declaration that the Block 245 Resolution Agreement and the subsequent letter purportedly granting OPL 245 by the first and third respondents were issued outside the scope of their statutory powers under the Petroleum Industry Act.

“It is also praying for an order to quash, set aside, and nullify the conversion of OPL 245 to OML 245 by the first and third respondents. Malabu argues this was done while Suit Nos: FHC/ABJ/CS/201/2017 and FHC/ABJ/CS/206/2017 were pending before the Federal High Court, alongside Appeal Nos CA/A/393/2019 and CA/A/883/2020 at the Court of Appeal, and Appeal Nos SC/CV/356/2025 and SC/CV/959/2025 at the Supreme Court.

“In addition, Malabu seeks an order awarding ₦1,000,000,000,000.00 in damages against the respondents jointly and severally. The company says this is for unlawful interference with its interests in OPL 245 and for actions that exceed the limits of the Petroleum Industry Act 2021.

In a sworn affidavit, shareholder and director, Alhaji Mohammed Sani Abacha, detailed the company’s history and its prolonged legal battle over OPL 245.”

He stated, ‘”The applicant applied for an Oil Prospecting License and was granted OPLs 214 and 245 on 29 April 1998 by the then Honourable Minister of Petroleum Resources through allocation letters.'”

Abacha explained that Malabu met all financial obligations, including paying a $2,040,000 signature bonus, before the license was revoked in 2001 and that revocation led to litigation, which was settled out of court in 2006.

He emphasized, “A key term of the out-of-court settlement was that the first defendant would reallocate Oil Prospecting License 245 to the applicant.'”

He added, “To fulfill that term, the first respondent issued a reallocation letter dated 2 July 2010, reallocating OPL 245 to the applicant.'”

Abacha argued that this reallocation gave Malabu exclusive possession of OPL 245, a right that has never been lawfully revoked under the Petroleum Industry Act.

Despite the ongoing litigation, Malabu claims the government signed a new Resolution Agreement in February 2026, dividing OPL 245 among Shell Nigeria Ultra-Deep Limited, Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company Ltd, Nigerian Agip Exploration Company Ltd, and NNPC Limited.

“I know as a fact that despite the applicant’s subsisting rights and interests in OPL 245, the respondents willfully and deliberately excluded the applicant from the Block 245 Resolution Agreement, thereby violating its rights with impunity.,” Abacha states.

He added, “Neither the applicant nor any of its authorized or registered directors entered into any agreement with the first respondent or any other respondent to relinquish any of the applicant’s rights and interests in OPL 245 to any person.'”

The affidavit also cited public statements made by government officials and oil executives.

For example, Presidential Adviser on Energy to President Bola Tinubu, Mrs. Olu Arowolo-Verheijen, was quoted in a press release as saying, ‘The Settlement also represents a significant improvement on the 2011 Resolution Agreement reflecting the policy framework established under the deep water investments, while ensuring stronger value accretion and safeguards for the Federation. The reforms, anchored on the Petroleum Industry Act and supported by targeted executive actions, have already contributed to renewed interest and significant capital inflows into Nigeria’s oil and gas sector.’

Similarly, the Managing Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, Bayo Ojulari, was quoted as saying, “This resolution clears the path for the development of one of Nigeria’s most strategic deep water assets—the Zabazaba-Etan project. Progressing this development could add approximately 150,000 barrels per day to Nigeria’s oil production, representing a significant step toward strengthening our national energy security and economic resilience.'”

Malabu, however, argues that these statements show the government’s intent ‘to take over the asset of the applicant for private benefits.’

The company stressed that these actions were taken despite the existence of ongoing suits and appeals.

Abacha noted, “The conversion of OPL 245 to OML 245 was carried out by the first and third respondents while Suit Nos: FHC/ABJ/CS/201/2017 and FHC/ABJ/CS/206/2017 were pending before this Court, and while Appeal Nos CA/A/393/2019 and CA/A/883/2020 were before the Court of Appeal, and Appeal Nos SC/CV/356/2025 and SC/CV/959/2025 were before the Supreme Court, making it an act beyond their executive powers.’

He added, “Only a judicial review by this Court of the respondents’ actions can protect the applicant from the misuse of executive powers and executive recklessness by the respondents.'”

The matter is set for hearing on 11 June 2026 at the Federal High Court in Abuja.”