The Federal Government on Wednesday revoked the residential permit of expatriate staff of the Integrated Logistics Services Nigeria Limited (INTEL), and five other companies including former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar’s PRODECO International Limited, Orlean Investment Limited, West Africa Machinery Services Limited, Net Global System International Limited and MGM Logistics Solution Limited.
Many Nigerians have speculated that INTEL belongs to the former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar especially when he listed the company as one of his, on twitter.
1. NICOTES (now Intels) founded in 1989.
2. Prodeco, 1996
2. My farm, 1982.
3. ABTI schools, 1992 https://t.co/eHIhnQbnI5— Atiku Abubakar (@atiku) September 7, 2017
INTEL is however managed by Simone Volpi and founded by Gabriele Volpi and a few other Nigerian Investors of which the former Vice President is a major shareholder. Meanwhile, Gabriele Volpi is also the founder and President of Orlean Investment Limited.
This is not the first move against INTEL by the Federal Government; Issues between INTEL and the Oil Gas Free Zones (OGFZ) Authority have surfaced as well.
The Comptroller General of the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS), Muhammad Babandede, gave the affected staff, in the six companies listed, till November 30, 2017 to leave Nigeria or be deported on orders from the Minister of Interior, Abdulrahman Dambazau.
Babandede in a statement by the NIS spokesperson, Sunday James, said Section 39 (1) of the Immigration Act 2015 and Section 5 (5) of the Immigration regulation Act 2017 empowers the NIS to revoke the resident permit of expatriate workers of companies whose operational licenses have been withdrawn by the Oil and Gas Free Zones Authority.
Nigerian Ports Authority vs. INTEL
Contract between the Nigerian Ports Authority and INTEL was terminated in October. The NPA Boss, Hadiza Bala Usman accused INTEL of not complying with the Treasury Single Account (TSA) policy of the Federal Government, after two years of implementation.
She stated that no company is above the law adding that it is only when all corporate entities obey the law, of the country that everyone benefits.
According to Hadiza Usman, INTEL is yet to remit NPA’s $13 million monthly revenue, to the TSA from November 2016 to date. She however, acknowledged that the Authority owes INTEL about $700 million.
INTEL however in a statement said the Pilotage Agency Agreement signed in 2010 did not envisage the TSA and as such did not factor into its implementation.
The company explained that efforts to resolve all issues through meetings, letters, and proposals proved abortive as they were rebuffed.
The House of Representative members, following the termination of INTEL contract by the Federal Government, insists that the Federal Government did not follow due process in terminating the contract between the NPS and INTEL, saying if there is a breach of contract, terms and conditions of the agreement must be revisited.
A member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), representing Bayelsa State, Henry Ofongo said the cancellation of the contract without following ‘laid down procedures’ could send wrong signals to investors.
“We are currently in a situation where we are looking for investors to come into the country and the ones that are already here should not be chased away.
“If there is any infraction that INTEL has committed, there are ways to go about it. To singlehandedly sit down and cancel the contract that has been signed is not the right thing to do.
Similarly, All Progressive Congress (APC) member, representing Bauchi State, Mohammed Sani Abdu, stated that:
“If there is a contract between two people or parties and all of a sudden, there is a dispute, the most justifiable thing to do at this point is to go back to where you were, so that nobody is cheated, because in the first instance, there was an agreement”.
Before the termination of the contract with INTEL, the NPA had earlier written about three times to the Company, reminding the Company of its commitment to the Federal Government, as regards payment and compliance of the Treasury Single Account policy.
INTEL, however, stood its grounds, that it would not be able to comply with the TSA policy, stating that it had loan commitments with some commercial banks guaranteed by the deposits.
The NPA thereafter wrote to the Presidency’s Chief of Staff, Abba Kyari, the Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amaechi and the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, who then advised after getting the second letter from the NPA that:
“the conflict between the Agreement (with INTEL) and the TSA policy presents a Force Majeure event under the Agreement, and NPA should forthwith commence the process of issuing the relevant notices to INTEL exiting the agreement which indeed was void ab initio”.
Oil and Gas Free Zones Authority (OGFZA) vs. INTEL
The Oil and Gas Free Zones Authority is charged with the responsibility of licensing, regulating, controlling, supervising, managing and coordinating the activities of all OGFZs in the Country.
OGFZA was established by Section 2 of the Oil and Gas Export Free Zone Act No. 8 of 1996, to regulate Nigeria’s Oil and Gas Free Trade Zones. The Authority began operation in Onne, Rivers State in 2001.
In line with Section 35(b) of the Oil and Gas Free Zone Regulation 2003, OGFZA in a letter FZA/INTEL/02/FZE/VO1/007 requested that INTEL submit its audited accounts and other reports. The Authority said INTEL is yet to meet that requirement and has not even responded to the letter.
INTEL operating permit expired in 2016 and has not been renewed by the OGFZA stating that the Company has not met the conditions for renewal of its license, hence the delay for the issuance of 2017 free zone operating permit.
OGFZA also explained that the payment of free zone license fee by INTEL does not in and of itself constitute a sufficient condition for the renewal of its license.
However, INTEL explanation for non-compliance is that it disputes some of the charges that it has been asked to pay.
Responding, the OGFZA said INTEL position was unacceptable because payment of fees and the outstanding amount due to the Authority cannot be compromised on the altar of ‘purported dispute’ by a prospective licensee.
