• Say lender angry over oil firms’ refusal to sell shares to it
•Reveal meeting with EFCC not a probe, done in convivial atmosphere with all parties present
•Describe ‘sponsored’ reports as setback for amicable resolution of pending commercial issues
The attention of Neconde Energy Ltd. (Neconde) and Nestoil Ltd. (Nestoil) has been drawn to a grievously false and deceitful front page banner paid news items in various newpapers of August 17, 2026 (including Thisday, Leadership, Businessday, The Guardian, The Nation, New Telegraph) with the following caption “EFCC RECOVERS $60 MILLION DOLLARS IN ONGOING NESTOIL INVESTIGATION”. The headline and incoherent content of the news item is a sponsored malicious and despicable false narrative which Nestoil and Neconde are convinced was originated by a particular recalcitrant lender. The sponsored nature of the news item is reinforced by the consistency in the narrative across all newspapers and Thisday Newspaper specifically stated that it was an “Advertorial”. Since this particular lender is determined to scuttle the efforts of Nestoil/Neconde and other lenders at a resolution of these purely commercial issues by sponsoring a jaundiced narrative of a private resolution meeting, Nestoil and Neconde are compelled to issue this statement to put the correct narrative out in the public space as follows:
a. By decisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Appeal No. SC/CV/48/2026 Neconde Energy Ltd V. FBNQUEST Merchant Bank Ltd. & Ors. and Appeal No. SC/CV/1130/2025 – Neconde Energy Ltd v. FBNQUEST Merchant Bank Ltd. & Ors. delivered on 10th April, 2026 and 1st June, 2026 respectively, the highest Court in Nigeria set aside and condemned actions and strangulating orders obtained by the lenders. In one of the instances, the Supreme Court decried the acts done by the lenders as “a scandalous and despicable engagement in gross abuse of judicial process”. These decisions removed all judicial impediments and asphyxiations mounted by the lenders. The decisions led (amongst others) to the re-opening of the Iconic Nestoil Towers in Victoria Island, Lagos, which had been illegally and dishonestly sealed by the lenders.
b. The Supreme Court decisions also set aside the orders in favour of the receiver purportedly appointed by the lenders and rightly held that he could not exercise Statutory powers whilst his appointment was being challenged. The Federal High Court had separately in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2534/2025 . by an order dated 1st December, 2025 suspended the powers (purported) of the said receiver.
c. Following the successive decisions of the Supreme Court against the lenders, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) under the auspices of the Commission’s Chairman convened a meeting on 8th July, 2026. The meeting was purely conciliatory and towards an amicable resolution. It is this commendable initiative of the EFCC Chairman that the sponsor of the news item has now tried to take advantage of and spurn. If not for mischief and irresponsible utter bad faith, why would the contents of a confidential meeting held on 8th July, 2026 be the subject of a front page news story over a month after on August 17, 2026. What exactly is the breaking news, worthy of a sponsored front page story in this? Little wonder, the news item concealed the date of the meeting.
d. Out of respect for the EFCC Chairman, Nestoil/Neconde attended the meeting with its leadership at the highest cadre. Senior Counsel from Wole Olanipekun & Co., Neconde’s lead counsel also attended the meeting with other Senior Counsel as well as Nestoil/Neconde’s financial advisers. The Senior Counsel for the lenders, Babajide Koku, SAN also attended the meeting with decision makers from each of the respective lenders. The meeting was therefore not any form of criminal interrogation or summons but purely conciliatory to resolve commercial issues. The EFCC Chairman was explicit at the meeting that the relationship between Neconde/Nestoil and the lenders was commercial and symbiotic and that none should damage the other. He also admonished the parties that the transaction was of national significance and Nestoil/Neconde and the lenders were of systemic significance to the Nigerian economy and genuine efforts should be made to make them all thrive.
e. There was no representative of the media or media teams of the EFCC at the meeting because the discussions were not for media hype or newspaper headlines. Parties had elaborate conversations in good faith in a convivial atmosphere and firm decisions were reached as to how the commercial relationship between Nestoil/Neconde and the lenders will progress in terms of mutual obligations in the period following.
f. After the meeting, Nestoil/Neconde’s lead counsel agreed with the lenders’ lead counsel (in communication between them to concretize the settlement) that the agreements reached at the meeting should be documented in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and one was immediately originated by Neconde’s Counsel for the lenders’ review. Parties (and their counsel) have engaged in extensive reviews of the MOU and our lead counsel firm had indicated to us that they already reached significant alignment with the lenders’ counsel who had informed our counsel that the lenders’ final revision of the MOU will be communicated in the week of 17 August, 2026 and a subsequent meeting afterwards towards execution.
g. Coincidentally, both our lead counsel and the lenders’ counsel agreed that all parties should refrain from any engagement by adverts or sponsored publications in the media. The sponsored publications of August 17, 2026 in multiple print and electronic media outlets at the instance of one of the lenders is therefore clear cut evidence of bad faith almost bordering on dishonesty.
h. Nestoil/Neconde has been consistent from the beginning of the disputes that this particular lender who has been sponsoring different character assassination campaigns in the media, is driven by ulterior motives especially because its new so-called majority investor and Holding Company Chairman had made an offer in writing to the Chairman of Nestoil/Neconde to be allotted shares in Neconde. Neconde outrightly rejected the plea for obvious reasons including the notorious reputation of this investor of running failed businesses in the past and leaving organizations he invests in worse off. Nestoil/Neconde are companies that have been built based on long term consistent sacrifice and commitment and thus incompatible with a corporate raider principle where an investor wants to make quick returns and exit. It was shortly after Neconde rejected this investor’s offer to buy some Neconde shares, that the onslaught against our companies started in a manner akin to an attempt to grab the companies from their owners. Nestoil/Neconde has intelligence that the negative actions against our companies were led by this particular lender and its Holdco Chairman without the concurrence of other lenders; and this is corroborated by the fact that one of the lenders had initiated separate proceedings divorced from that led by this lender.
i. The publications pretend to be patronizing of the EFCC, whereas the lenders have communicated to Nestoil/Neconde that their preference is for payments not to be routed through the EFCC ,despite the fact that it was a subsidiary of one of the lenders that wrote the petition to EFCC purportedly on behalf of all lenders. The strategy is a characteristic case of divide and rule and pitching parties against each other which is a manifestation of utter bad faith. In a characteristic show of cowardice, the sponsor of the publication freely bandied the name of the EFCC Chairman and officials of the EFCC in a bid to use their names to obtain validation for the sponsors and contrary to the discreet, measured and covert disposition of the EFCC in carrying out its statutory duties.
As responsible corporate organizations, Neconde and Nestoil have refrained from putting fine details of their commercial engagements with the lenders in the public space. We believe that those details are not for public consumption and despite any provocation or infantile conduct, we will retain a mature disposition. Nestoil/Neconde remain committed to an amicable resolution of the commercial issues. We must state that this latest action sponsored by this lender is a serious setback for the resolution process. The publications were deliberate, coordinated and premeditated. Nestoil/Neconde got hint that this lender was disseminating and shopping the publication to various media houses about 48 hours before it was published and protested but the lender remained recalcitrant and unrelenting. We reserve all our rights in the circumstances and urge other lenders not to allow this particular lender (with a different unaltruistic interest to serve) to lead other lenders by the nose and scuttle all the hard and genuine work that have gone into this resolution process. The sponsoring of this publication on the eve of the execution of an MOU amongst other reciprocal commitments due for August, 2026 is proof of everything inconsistent with good faith by a party bent on scuttling the resolution or obsessed by an over bloated ego and false impression of self-worth and importance.
Neconde/Nestoil categorically deny the assertions of criminality and crime related recovery implicit in the publication. The lingering question is what exactly was the purpose that the publication was meant to serve aside cheap blackmail, reputation maligning, falsehood , egotistic mudslinging that are products of a juvenile or infatuated mind?
SIGNED: MANAGEMENTS OF NECONDE ENERGY LIMITED AND NESTOIL LIMITED