The claim that more than 2.4 billion dollars were lost due to the unlawful sale of 40 million barrels of crude oil is unfounded, according to the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami.
This was said by him on Thursday when he spoke before the House of Representatives Adhoc Committee looking into the situation.
Malami claimed that after looking into the claim, it was discovered that the crude oil’s origin was unknown, and President Muhammadu Buhari was informed of this.
Read Also: Nothing Like Salary Increase — Civil Servants Clarify Reported 40 Percent Rise
With regard to details of accounts into which recovered monies were paid, he said the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) maintained these accounts which are operated by the Ministry of Finance, maintained in the apex bank and that the AGF is not a signatory.
The House had in December last year resolved to constitute an ad-hoc committee to probe the allegation when it adopted a motion sponsored by Isiaka Ibrahim from Ogun State, at plenary.
The committee was also mandated to investigate all crude oil exports and sales by Nigeria from 2014 till date with regards to quantity, insurance, revenue generated, remittances into the federation accounts or other accounts as well as utilisation of the revenue for the period under review.
Ibrahim had said in the motion, “A whistle-blower alleged in July 2020 that he had in July 2015, brought to the attention of a committee purportedly set up by the president for the recovery of missing crude oil exports, the existence of 48 million barrels of Nigeria’s Bonny Light crude oil in storage at several ports in China, under the authorisation of the then Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to sell the cargo.”
However, Malami replied thus;
Let me state on record and for the benefit of Nigerians and the committee that the allegations relating to the 48 million barrels are baseless. The allegation is unfounded. It lacks merit and indeed substance.
The allegation in its own right is devoid of any reasonable ground pointing to a material suspicion cogent enough to invoke the constitutional oversight of the Committee.
Why do I say so? Sometimes in 2016 allegations were rife and hyped in social media. There were allegations of the existence of stolen 48 million barrels of Nigerian crude in China said to have been valued at $2.4 billion.
President Muhammadu Buhari informally requested the attorney-general, making reference to my humble person, Mele Kyari, Lawal Daura, former DG of DSS; and late Abba Kyari; to look into it and advise. But unfortunately, for there to be a reasonable ground for suspicion, at least, you require certain basic facts.
If you’re talking of a product, you cannot establish the substance relating thereto, without confirming the origin of the purported product in China. If you talk about a product in China. Is it of Nigerian origin? That can be ascertained by samples and specifications. Is it Bonny Light for example, which you know emanates from Nigeria or what is it.
The basic details of the existence of the product and connecting it to Nigeria were not there at all. If you are talking of a product, the vessel perhaps that has taken it, what are the particulars and details of the vessel? There were not available at our disposal at all.
Which authority is it that has taken custody of the product? There was no information at all. So the issue is simple. There were no reasonable grounds for suspicion of the fact that the purported oil product either exists in spirit or in fact or indeed exists in China — and it is in no way connected to Nigeria. And all efforts on our part to get details have proven abortive.
It was a committee that was dead on arrival because it has not been formally constituted.
We could not establish the substance of the allegation because detailed information to confirm the existence and origin of the shipment such as the sample of the oil, vessel involved loading point, etc, and location of the crude in China, etc were not provided
We reported to the president that we were unable to confirm the veracity of the allegation, hence no further action was taken by my office.
