Dangote Withdraws Legal Case Over Fuel Import Licences

Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals has officially withdrawn its lawsuit challenging the federal government’s decision to issue fuel import licences to the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and several private oil marketers.

The suit, which was before the Federal High Court in Abuja, had stirred significant industry debate since it was filed in late 2024. 

Dangote Refinery’s legal challenge questioned the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority’s (NMDPRA) issuance of licences that allowed both state-owned and private players to import petroleum products, despite the much-celebrated commissioning of Africa’s largest refinery.

In the notice of discontinuance, signed by its counsel Ogwu Onoja (SAN), Dangote Refinery offered no explanation for the sudden withdrawal. The one-line statement simply read: “The plaintiff herein discontinues this suit against the defendants forthwith.”

What happened earlier

At the heart of the now-discontinued case was a fundamental question: should Nigeria allow the importation of petroleum products when it has an operational refinery with the capacity to meet some of its domestic needs?

In its original filing, Dangote Refinery had argued that NMDPRA’s action violated the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), specifically sections that restrict fuel importation to situations where there’s an actual shortfall in local production.

 It claimed that by allowing NNPCL and several marketers including AYM Shafa, A. A. Rano, and Matrix Petroleum to continue importing fuel, the government was undermining local refining efforts.

The refinery demanded ₦100 billion in damages and accused the regulators of failing to fulfill their statutory responsibility to support indigenous refineries. But the defendants pushed back hard.

Monopoly fears and market concerns

Oil marketers named in the suit argued that Dangote’s case was less about legality and more about control. 

In a joint counter-affidavit, they warned that granting the refinery what was essentially a monopoly over fuel supply in Nigeria would spell trouble for the economy. 

They said it would remove the benefits of competitive pricing, increase vulnerability to supply shocks, and threaten the already fragile energy sector.

The marketers also highlighted the risks of relying solely on one refinery, noting that if Dangote’s operations were to stall or experience technical difficulties, the nation could face a severe fuel crisis.

The NMDPRA echoed similar sentiments, saying Dangote’s production was not yet sufficient to meet the country’s daily needs. 

In its defense, the agency explained that the import licences were issued to close the supply gap, and to companies with proven capacity and trading records. It also emphasized its responsibility under the law to prevent monopolies and promote competition.

NNPCL, for its part, challenged the competence of the suit, stating that it had been wrongly named and that the case lacked legal standing. Though the court later allowed Dangote to amend its summons, the case had already sparked deep conversations about fairness, market structure, and national energy policy.

Is this a strategic retreat?

The withdrawal of the suit leaves many questions unanswered. Was it a strategic recalibration by Dangote Refinery following industry backlash? Or did behind-the-scenes negotiations prompt the decision to drop the legal challenge?

Whatever the reason, the development underscores the ongoing friction between Nigeria’s ambitious industrial vision and the practical realities of its oil and gas sector. 

The Dangote Refinery, though hailed as a game-changer, still faces the challenge of integrating into a complex, politically sensitive market.

The case was scheduled to be heard in September before Justice Mohammed Umar. Now, the focus shifts to whether the withdrawal signals a truce or just a pause in what could be a long battle over who controls Nigeria’s fuel future.