The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), has taken a decisive step in representing the Federal Government at the Supreme Court in a high-stakes legal battle involving Petro Union Oil and Gas Limited. The case, which centers on an alleged fraudulent claim of £2.556 billion, has escalated into a £15 billion liability, posing a significant threat to Nigeria’s foreign reserves.
This marks the first time the Federal Government is intervening at such a high level since Petro Union secured a controversial judgment from the Federal High Court in Abuja. The judgment had directed the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Union Bank of Nigeria, the Minister of Finance, and the Attorney-General to jointly pay Petro Union the sum along with 15 percent annual interest.
However, an investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) uncovered that the company allegedly obtained the judgment using a Barclays Bank UK cheque linked to an account that had been closed five years before it was presented. This led to the ongoing criminal trial of Petro Union’s directors—Prince Kingsley Okpala, Prince Chidi Okpalaeze, Prince Emmanuel Okpalaeze, and Abayomi Kukoyi (trading as Gladstone Kukoyi & Associates)—on a 13-count charge of conspiracy, forgery, and fraud before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court in Lagos.
During the March 17, 2025, proceedings at the Supreme Court, Chief Fagbemi led a team of lawyers, including Mohammed Gazali (SAN) from the Federal Ministry of Justice, to challenge the previous court ruling. Union Bank’s legal team, led by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), sought to amend the Notice of Appeal by introducing eight additional Grounds of Appeal, a motion supported by the AGF and CBN but opposed by Petro Union’s lawyers.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court reserved its ruling for a later date. Legal experts have drawn parallels between this case and the infamous $10 billion Process and Industrial Development (P&ID) scandal, which similarly involved allegations of fraudulent claims against the Nigerian government.
The origins of the case trace back to 1994, when Petro Union presented a £2.556 billion cheque from Barclays Bank UK to a Union Bank branch in Lagos, purportedly for refinery construction and the establishment of a bank. Investigations by the CBN and Union Bank later revealed that the cheque, dated December 29, 1994, was counterfeit. Barclays Bank also confirmed that Gazeaft Limited, the issuer of the bill of exchange, had no account with them and was not a registered UK company.
Despite these findings, Petro Union continued to claim that Union Bank had received and transferred the funds to the CBN. The company secured a controversial judgment based on an alleged CBN statement of account—an assertion disputed by the apex bank, which argued that it does not hold accounts for private entities.
As both the CBN and Union Bank seek to overturn the judgment, legal documents presented to the Supreme Court suggest that Petro Union may have misrepresented facts, concealed key evidence, and relied on forged documents.
With Nigeria’s debt profile already under scrutiny, concerns are mounting over the potential financial impact of this case. Many observers are now looking to the Supreme Court for a final resolution that could safeguard the country’s financial stability.