The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC) has accused the Dangote Petroleum Refinery of attempting to weaken competition in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector through its legal challenge against fuel import licences issued to other marketers.
In a defence filed before the Federal High Court in Lagos, NNPC argued that granting Dangote’s requests would expose Nigeria to fuel supply disruptions, price instability, and broader risks to national energy security.
The state-owned oil company maintained that the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) acted within its statutory powers in issuing the contested import licences.
According to NNPC, existing regulations allow licences to companies with local refining capacity or a proven track record in petroleum trading, while regulators retain discretion under Nigeria’s backward integration policy.
The company further argued that there is no legal requirement banning fuel imports except in cases where a verified domestic supply shortfall exists.
NNPC also rejected Dangote Refinery’s interpretation of the Petroleum Industry Act, insisting that fuel imports remain a lawful and necessary tool for stabilising domestic supply and pricing.
The dispute originated from a suit filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery, which is challenging the issuance and renewal of import licences granted to petroleum marketers and NNPC.
The refinery is seeking an interim injunction to stop the Attorney-General of the Federation and relevant agencies from issuing or renewing licences for Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), Automotive Gas Oil (AGO), and Jet A1.
Dangote argued that continued importation undermines local refining capacity and violates Section 317(9) of the Petroleum Industry Act, which it interprets as limiting imports to situations of verified supply shortfalls.
The refinery, which has a capacity of about 650,000 barrels per day, insists that Nigeria already produces sufficient refined petroleum products to meet domestic demand.
It cited regulatory data suggesting that daily output of petrol and diesel exceeds national consumption levels, arguing that imports are therefore unnecessary.
Dangote Refinery also maintains that it has the capacity to meet 100 per cent of Nigeria’s refined fuel needs while generating surplus for export.
It described its facility as a major national investment capable of creating a multi-billion-dollar market for Nigerian crude oil.
However, NNPC disputed these claims, arguing that Dangote has not provided credible or independently verifiable evidence of its full production capacity.
The Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) has also applied to join the case, expanding the dispute into a wider regulatory and policy battle over fuel importation and market control.
Dangote Refinery further alleged that regulatory agencies, including the NMDPRA, the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), and NNPC, have created a hostile operating environment by continuing to issue import licences despite no proven supply gap.
It also accused NNPC of failing to supply sufficient crude oil for optimal operations, claiming it receives about five crude cargoes per month instead of the 13 required to run at full capacity, forcing it to source crude internationally at higher costs.
NNPC denied the allegation, insisting that crude allocation decisions are guided by operational, commercial, security, and logistical considerations rather than any intent to undermine the refinery.
The company warned that restricting import licences could destabilise fuel supply, increase price volatility, and threaten energy security in Africa’s largest oil market.
Dangote Refinery, however, maintained that continued fuel imports could weaken its operations and threaten Nigeria’s long-term goal of achieving energy self-sufficiency.
It is also seeking an interim court order to restrain the issuance of new import licences pending the determination of the substantive suit, warning of potential financial and operational losses if its request is not granted.
The Federal High Court has not yet fixed a date for hearing the case.
