Connect with us
nairametrics
UBA ads

Business

Critics blame FG as Vitol quits oil fields acquisition

Delay on the part of the Nigerian government has forced Vitol to pull out of an acquisition talk involving two Nigerian oil fields.

Published

on

Critics blame FG as Vitol quits oil fields acquisition, Further oil production cut required to keep oil price above $40 in 2020 

Delay on the part of the Nigerian government has forced one of the world’s biggest energy company, Vitol, to pull out of an acquisition talk involving two Nigerian oil fields. Vitol was among a consortium interested in buying the Nigerian oil fields from Brazil’s Petrobras but the former has now backed out of the deal.

Vitol is not the only company from the consortium to quit, according to a report. Delonex Energy also pulled out of the deal. The Nigerian oil fields are owned by Petrobras, which is willing to sell, with the deal almost at the conclusion stage.

UBA ADS

Nairametrics had reported last month that back in May 2017, Petrobras decided to divest from as much as $21 billion worth of assets. The decision was made following a dramatic increase in the company’s debt to the tune of $100 billion. This led Petrobras to place some of its assets on sale, including its stake in Petrobras Africa.

Critics blame FG as Vitol quits oil fields from Petrobras

Reasons Vitol pulled out of deal

It was learnt that the Brazilian and Nigerian governments contributed to the exit of Vitol from the deal. Both governments were blamed for delaying the deal by not approving necessary clearances.

GTBank 728 x 90

Also, the report quoted a source, who disclosed that Vitol’s inability to get physical oil cargoes from the deal further encouraged the company to pull out. It was stated that it wasn’t a core business for Vitol.

 “At the end of the day, it was a non-core business for Vitol, so they walked away,” one source said.

[READ MORE: Interswitch expands operations, acquires majority stake in eClat Healthcare]

Deal book 300 x 250
onebank728 x 90

The deal goes on

According to the other company that makes up the consortium, Africa Oil, the deal would be unhindered by Vitol’s withdrawal. Africa Oil has reiterated its commitment to go ahead to seal the $1.5 billion deal.

With the exit of Vitol and Delonex Energy, Africa Oil said it had entered into an agreement with BTG Pactual (Brazil’s largest independent investment bank) to obtain a $250 million loan facility, while it would fund the rest.

Note that BTG also owns 50% of Petrobras Africa, whose core assets are stakes in offshore fields that produce Nigerian oil grades Agbami, Egina and Akpo.

app
GTBank 728 x 90

Speaking about Africa Oil’s intention to sign the deal despite the exit of Vitol and Delonex Energy, Chief Executive of Africa Oil, Keith Hill, said, “We remain committed to completing this acquisition and look forward to working with Petrobras and all stakeholders to accomplish that goal.”

Critics blame FG as Vitol quits oil fields from Petrobras

What you need to know

Petrobras is not only selling its Nigerian oil fields. The company is selling other assets to make up the debt. Petrobras has reached an agreement to sell a $2.9 billion worth of assets to Equinor AXA, a Norwegian company. The company is also contemplating selling off its natural gas pipeline which is 4,500 kilometres long, and valued at $9 billion.

devland

Petrobras’ stake in Petrobras Africa is also among the list of assets that were scheduled for divestment. The other two partners in the African operation (i.e., Helios Investment Partners and Banco BTG Pactual) initially mulled selling their stakes as well but changed their minds along the line.

[READ ALSO: Access Bank to acquire Kenyan bank seven months after merger with Diamond Bank]

app

In 2013, Banco BTG paid $1.5 billion for 50% in Petrobras Africa. Afterwards, Helios Investment Partners came onboard. Things were going well until 2016 when a Brazilian lawmaker disclosed that Banco BTG actually paid less money for its 50% share.

According to the revelation, private consultants valued the share at $2.7 billion instead of $1.5 billion. Meanwhile, the Brazilian bank insisted that it acquired the stakes through transparent means.

Patricia

Olalekan is a certified media practitioner from the Nigerian Institute of Journalism (NIJ). In the era of media convergence, Olalekan is a valuable asset, with ability to curate and broadcast news. His zeal to write was developed out of passion to shape people’s thought and opinion; serving as a guideline for their daily lives. Contact for tips: [email protected]

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

CBN adds Maize importation to “41 banned list”

Dealers are to return their forms on or before Wednesday, July 15, 2020.

Published

on

CBN Bans Maize Importation

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has directed all authorised dealers to immediately discontinue the processing of Forms M for maize/corn importation into the country. This directive is contained in a notice that was addressed to authorised dealers and signed by Dr O.S Nnaji, CBN’s Director in charge of Trade and Exchange Department.

In the notice which was made available to the public earlier today, the CBN noted four main reasons for the directive to discontinue maize importation, The reasons are:

UBA ADS
  • To increase local production
  • To stimulate a rapid economic recovery
  • To safeguard rural livelihoods
  • To increase jobs

In line with this development, all the authorised dealers have been told to return all the Forms M they have already registered for the purpose of importing maize. They are to return the forms on or before Wednesday, July 15, 2020. The notice by the CBN said:

“As part of efforts by the Central Bank of Nigeria to increase local production, stimulate a rapid economic recovery, safeguard rural livelihoods, and increase jobs which were lost as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Authorised Dealers are hereby directed to discontinue the processing of Forms M for the importation of Maize/Corn with immediate effect. 

“Accordingly, all Authorised Dealers are hereby requested to submit the list of Forms M already registered for the importation of Maize/Corn using the attached format on or before the close of business on Wednesday July 15, 2020. Please ensure strict compliance.”

GTBank 728 x 90

What this means: Recall that in June 2015, the CBN issued a circular containing a list of 41 imported goods and services that were banned from accessing Nigeria’s official Foreign Exchange Market. A Nairametrics report at the time had noted that the ban was another hard-line position taken by the apex bank to keep control of the demand of the dollar to as low as it possibly can.

Over the years, the CBN has been modifying this list by including more items. The addition of maize/corn, which is a widely-consumed staple food in the country, is the latest modification.

It should be noted that cereals (which include maize and other assorted grains) make up Nigeria’s top ten imports. In 2019 alone, the country spent about $1.3 billion on cereals importation, according to World’s Top Export.

onebank728 x 90

You may see a copy of the CBN notice along with ‘the attached format’ by clicking here.

Patricia
Continue Reading

Business

CITN issues rejoinder to ICAN’s claim over court case

The rebuttal claims that there are some ‘critical misinterpretations’ contained in ICAN’s claims concerning the judgment.

Published

on

CITN

The Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria (CITN) has issued a rebuttal to the “critical misrepresentations” that are supposedly contained in a notice to members sent out by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN) over a court case, as reported by Nairametrics.

Recall that ICAN had informed its members that Justice S. A. Onigbanjo of the High Court of Lagos State ruled in their favour by striking out “Suit No. LD/3288GCM/19 – CITN VS ICAN” which was filed by CITN. In the suit, CITN had, among other things, prayed the court to restrain ICAN members from filing tax returns with the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) unless they have a CITN license.

UBA ADS

CITN’s position: Now, in its rebuttal to ICAN’s claims concerning the court case, a copy of which was sent to Nairametrics, CITN clarified the following points:

  1. The Ruling of the Hon. Justice S. A. Onigbanjo of the 2/7/2020 in LD/3288GCM/19 did not invalidate the MOU and TOS because it did NOT address the issues in the substantive suit, itself. However, since ICAN has resiled from the MoU and ToS it freely entered with CITN, the CITN will not stop ICAN from walking away.
  2. The Judge only struck out the suit based on the Preliminary Objection of ICAN to the effect that the suit was an abuse of court process because the issues in it were the same as the issues in FHC/L/CS/125/2019 – ICAN VS FIRS & 1 OTHER which was earlier decided in favour of CITN.  However, the issues in the two suits are completely different and distinct as has now been explicitly admitted by ICAN in its Notice under reference when it said: “The earlier ruling at the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/125/2019 did not make pronouncement on the memorandum and terms of settlement between ICAN and CITN.”ICAN having admitted  that the judgment in FHC/L/CS/125/2019 did not make any pronouncement on the MOU and TOS (and this is a fact), how then could issues in that suit be the same as those in LD/3288GCM/2019 (decided by Justice Onigbanjo) which only asked for judicial pronouncement on the MOU and TOS?
  3. Regulation 5 of the Tax Administration (Self-Assessment) Regulations, 2011, was categorically annulled by the Hon. Justice Liman in the judgment delivered in FHC/L/CS/125/2019 on 21/11/2019.  None of the lawyers to the parties (including ICAN) can deny hearing the annulment of Regulation 5 during delivery of the judgment. It is unfortunate that ICAN is jumping the gun in a case with a pending post-judgment application.
  4. In the judgment delivered in FHC/L/CS/1480/2018 – CHIEF IGBAROOLA & OTHERS VS FIRS & OTHERS on 21/5/2019, the Hon. Justice A. O. Faji, declared: “CITN Act is thus superior to ICAN Act on the issue of tax practice.  The Self-Assessment Regulations being in conflict with the CITN Act is null and void.  The Plaintiffs cannot practice as tax agents without first being members of the 2nd Defendant.”
  5. In the Court of Appeal judgement of 2013 between ICAN v. CITN, it was held that the power to regulate and control the tax profession, to the exclusion of any other body, in Nigeria lies with CITN.
  6. It is, therefore, now firmly settled from all the relevant judgements at the Lagos High Court, Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, which have all upheld the primacy of the CITN Charter, that no member of ICAN can practice taxation without first being a member of CITN.
  7. For the avoidance of doubt, no ICAN member, who is not registered with CITN, has been permitted by any law or court decision to practice taxation. The law has made it clear about the professional body that can regulate tax profession in Nigeria and CITN reserves the right to invoke the relevant provisions against any person that violates the provisions of its charter.

The backstory: The disagreement between ICAN and CITN dates back to 2015 following a misinterpretation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Terms of Settlement (ToS) between the two organisations. Due to the disagreement, CITN took legal actions in a bid to basically make the MoU and ToS binding on ICAN members.


You may read CITN’s full rejoinder by clicking here and follow up on ICAN’s notice to its members here.

GTBank 728 x 90

Patricia
Continue Reading

Business

UPDATED: Court rules ICAN members do not need CITN license to file tax returns

The suit, which was filed some years ago by CITN, was basically struck out for lacking merit.

Published

on

ICAN

Justice S. A. Onigbanjo of the High Court of Lagos State has ruled that members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN) do not need to be licensed by the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria (CITN) before they can file tax returns.

The ruling on July 2nd followed a suit filed by CITN trying to restrain ICAN members from filing tax returns for their clients unless they have a practicing CITN license.

UBA ADS

A notice to ICAN members regarding this development, as seen by Nairametrics, noted that Justice Onigbanjo struck out the suit after describing it as “an abuse of court process and an embarrassment to the judiciary.”

The backstory: Nairametrics understands that the disagreement between ICAN and CITN stemmed from the misinterpretation of a 2015 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Terms of Settlement (ToS) between the two organisations. Consequently, CITN had filed a suit before the High Court of Lagos State, seeking the following:

  • A declaration that the Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Service both dated February 12, 2015 between the CITN and ICAN are valid, subsisting, and binding on the CITN and ICAN.
  • An injunction restraining ICAN whether by its agents, privies, assigns, or whosoever called, from repudiating, resiling from or acting in any manner or doing anything that is inconsistent with, contrary to or is a violation of the Memorandum of Understanding and the Terms of Settlement dated February 12, 2015, between the CITN and ICAN.
  • Determine whether the Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Settlement both dated February 12, 2015 between the CITN and ICAN are valid, subsisting, and binding on CITN and the ICAN.

However, last week’s ruling by Justice S. A. Onigbanjo which, by the way, was delivered virtually due to COVID-19, has made it impossible for the CITN to implement the terms of the 2015 MoU and ToS. The ruling also aligned with ICAN’s earlier objection to the MoU and ToS.

GTBank 728 x 90

The status quo: In view of this development, ICAN has informed its members that they do not need to obtain any license from the CITN before they can file tax returns for their clients with the Federal Inland Revenue Service, FIRS.

ICAN members were also informed that an earlier ruling by the Federal High Court on the case does not affect the status quo. This is because “the earlier ruling by the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/125/2019 did not make pronouncement on the memorandum and terms of settlement between ICAN and CITN.” More so, regulation 5 of the FIRS Act was not reflected in the earlier judgment of the Federal High Court.

onebank728 x 90
Patricia
Continue Reading