Follow Us on Google
A consortium of foreign financial institutions, including Glencore Energy UK Limited, Africa Finance Corporation and Mauritius Commercial Bank, has instituted legal action against First Bank Nigeria Trustees Limited and its appointed receiver, Abubakar Sulu-Gambari SAN, over what it describes as an unlawful attempt to take control of Neconde Energy Limited’s interest in Oil Mining Lease 42 (OML 42).
The lenders, who previously extended credit facilities to Neconde Energy, appointed FBN Trustees as security trustee under the terms of their financing agreements. However, they now allege that FBN Trustees breached its fiduciary responsibilities by abandoning its neutral role and acting in a manner that undermines the contractual rights of the senior foreign lenders.
In court filings, the foreign financiers accuse FBN Trustees of orchestrating an illegal grab of Neconde’s oil asset by secretly creating a second layer of security over the company’s stake in OML 42 without the mandatory consent of the original lenders. They maintain that such consent was expressly requested and clearly denied, making any subsequent action unauthorised and invalid.
Despite this refusal, FBN Trustees is alleged to have proceeded with the execution of a deed of charge over Neconde’s OML 42 interest. The lenders argue that this move amounts to a serious breach of trust, violates the binding loan terms, and represents a deliberate effort to transfer control of the asset to a group of Nigerian banks that, according to them, have no legitimate debt claim against Neconde.
The lawsuit further contends that Neconde Energy owes no outstanding obligations to the Nigerian banks now asserting rights over OML 42. On that basis, the foreign lenders insist that any security created in favour of those banks lacks legal foundation and that all enforcement actions arising from it should be declared null and void.
They also dispute the legitimacy of the receiver’s appointment, arguing that it stems from a manufactured claim built on an invalid security arrangement. In their view, the receiver’s authority is therefore defective and incapable of supporting any lawful takeover of Neconde’s oil interests.
The case is already drawing attention within legal and financial circles, with analysts noting that it raises broader concerns about governance standards, trustee accountability and investor protection in Nigeria’s banking and energy sectors. Allegations that a trustee linked to a major financial institution could seek to override contractual safeguards and redirect strategic oil assets are expected to unsettle both local and international investors.
OML 42 is regarded as a significant upstream oil asset, and its ownership structure carries commercial and strategic implications. The foreign lenders argue that the integrity of trust arrangements and secured lending frameworks in Nigeria is now at stake, warning that the outcome of the dispute could influence future foreign investment decisions in the country.
In their suit, the lenders are asking the court to set aside the disputed security, nullify the actions taken by FBN Trustees, remove Abubakar Sulu-Gambari SAN as receiver, and award damages for losses allegedly suffered as a result of the contested transactions.
They insist that the matter goes beyond a commercial disagreement, framing it as a test of whether trustees can lawfully invent security interests, disregard agreed contractual terms and attempt to appropriate assets over which they hold no valid rights. For the foreign lenders, the central principle is that a trustee must uphold its duty of neutrality and cannot unilaterally rewrite the rules to the detriment of those it was appointed to protect.
