Lagos-Allegations that the Group Chief Executive Officer of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), Bayo Ojulari, awarded oil blocks to associates in recent licensing rounds have come under scrutiny, with industry sources arguing that the claims overlook the statutory separation between Nigeria’s national oil company and its upstream petroleum regulator.
The sources said Ojulari and NNPCL do not have the statutory mandate to grant Petroleum Prospecting Licences (PPLs), insisting that responsibility for administering upstream licensing rests with the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), while the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) vests the authority to grant a PPL in the Minister of Petroleum Resources.
The distinction is significant because NNPCL and NUPRC are separate institutions with different mandates under Nigeria’s post-PIA petroleum framework.
Under Section 72 of the PIA, the Minister may grant a PPL to a qualified applicant recommended by NUPRC. The law also provides NUPRC with responsibility for administering key aspects of the upstream licensing regime.
NUPRC’s licensing regulations provide for a fair, transparent and competitive bidding process for petroleum prospecting licences and petroleum mining leases, while the Commission’s current exploration and acreage-management mandate includes conducting licensing rounds and processing applications for licence and lease allocations.
What role does NNPCL have in oil-block licensing?
Industry insiders said claims that Ojulari personally “awarded” oil blocks fail to distinguish NNPCL’s commercial role from NUPRC’s regulatory mandate.
“Ojulari did not conduct the bid process, evaluate applicants, select winners or grant any oil block,” a senior industry source said.
“He has no statutory authority to issue a Petroleum Prospecting Licence. NNPCL did not conduct the licensing exercise, and Ojulari neither selected nor approved any beneficiary.”
NUPRC’s licensing framework supports the distinction. The Commission’s 2025 licensing-round portal shows that applicants go through registration and pre-qualification, technical bid submission and technical evaluation before successful bidders proceed to the commercial bid conference.
The Commission also states that the winners of the licensing round receive Petroleum Prospecting Licences, with applicants required to meet qualification and bidding requirements before progressing through the process.
PIA changed Nigeria’s licensing architecture
The Petroleum Industry Act, enacted in 2021, fundamentally reorganised the institutional structure of Nigeria’s petroleum industry.
The legislation established NUPRC as the upstream regulator, separating regulatory responsibilities from the commercial functions of NNPCL.
NUPRC’s mandate includes the management of Nigeria’s upstream petroleum resources, regulation of exploration and production activities and administration of petroleum acreage.
Its Exploration and Acreage Management Department is specifically responsible for managing concessions and conducting licensing rounds, as well as processing applications for licence and lease allocations, assignments, renewals, conversions, extensions and relinquishments.
The PIA, however, draws a further distinction regarding PPLs: the Minister grants the licence to a qualified applicant recommended by the Commission.
Official PPL documents published by NUPRC reflect this arrangement, stating that the Minister is vested with the power to grant PPLs while NUPRC is responsible for the technical and commercial regulation of the upstream sector, including determining and recommending applicants that fulfil the conditions for licences.
Allegations involving Ojulari’s family
The dispute intensified following an allegation by a group operating under the name Oil and Gas Professionals Forum (OGPF) that a company allegedly linked to Ojulari’s wife benefited from the award of a marginal oil field.
Industry sources disputed the allegation, saying those making the claim had not produced corporate records, beneficial ownership documents, licensing papers or other evidence establishing a connection between Ojulari’s family and the alleged beneficiary.
“This allegation collapses under the slightest scrutiny,” another industry source said.
“This is not an innocent misunderstanding of the licensing process. It is an attempt to hold Ojulari responsible for an exercise over which he had no legal authority, no regulatory responsibility and no decision-making power.”
The allegations could not independently establish that Ojulari had influenced the licensing process or that any company connected to his family benefited from a particular award.
Sources allege reform-related pushback
The industry sources also attributed the attacks on Ojulari to resistance from interests allegedly affected by reforms being implemented under the NNPCL leadership.
They said the company’s efforts to strengthen financial controls, reduce operating costs, improve transparency in commercial transactions and impose greater discipline on contracting and investment decisions had challenged established interests.
According to the sources, the reform agenda is intended to reposition NNPCL as a commercially driven and globally competitive energy company while improving accountability and ensuring that commercial arrangements generate greater value for the company and the Nigerian public.
“His leadership has prioritised cost reduction, improved production, stronger corporate governance, financial accountability and greater transparency across the company’s commercial operations,” one source said.
The sources alleged that some individuals and companies that previously benefited from weak institutional controls were unhappy with the changes and were seeking to undermine the NNPCL leadership.
Those claims remain allegations, and the identities and motivations of the alleged interests could not independently be established.
Licensing claims should be tested against official records
A senior company official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorised to speak publicly, said allegations linking Ojulari or his family to an oil-block award could be tested against official corporate and licensing records.
“The attempt to link his family to an oil-block award is false and can easily be tested against official corporate and licensing records,” the official said.
“More importantly, the GCEO of NNPCL does not award oil blocks. NNPCL did not conduct the licensing exercise, and Ojulari neither selected nor approved any beneficiary.”
The official also said Ojulari had complied with relevant asset-declaration and Code of Conduct requirements.
The legal question is separate from any conflict-of-interest allegation
Industry analysts said there are two separate issues that should not be conflated.
The first is who has the statutory authority to administer and grant petroleum licences. On that question, the PIA is clear: NUPRC administers the upstream licensing process and recommends qualified applicants, while the Minister has the statutory power to grant a PPL.
The second is whether an NNPCL executive could have improperly influenced a licensing process despite lacking statutory authority to grant the licence.
That would require specific evidence of intervention, communication, conflict of interest, beneficial ownership or other conduct connecting the individual to the licensing decision.
Simply holding the position of NNPCL GCEO does not confer the statutory power to grant a PPL.
Consequently, any allegation that Ojulari “awarded” an oil block would need to establish more than an association with NNPCL. It would have to identify the specific licensing exercise, the beneficiary, the relevant decision-making stage and credible evidence of Ojulari’s alleged involvement.
For Nigeria’s oil and gas industry, the distinction is important: NNPCL is the national oil company, NUPRC is the upstream regulator, and the PIA assigns the formal power to grant a Petroleum Prospecting Licence to the Minister, following the regulatory process and recommendation prescribed by law.
