Connect with us

News

Why SEPLAT Sacked Avuru as Non-Executive Director

Published

on

Austin Avuru
Kindly share this post

The investing public may not have heard details of the main reasons why Austin Avuru, a former chief executive officer of Seplat Energy Plc who later became a Non-Executive Director was sacked from the board of the energy company.

Austin Avuru

Seplat Energy Plc had on Thursday, December 23 notified the Nigerian Exchange Limited (NGX) that its board has terminated the contract of appointment of Austin Avuru as a Non-Executive Director.

Seplat Energy told the NGX that Avuru’s appointment was terminated on December 22, 2021, “due to breaches of the Company’s corporate governance policies and his fiduciary duties.”

Shortly after SEPLAT hammer fell on Avuru, Perchstone & Graeys, the law firm representing the sacked Non-Executive Director said the allegations levelled against him (Avuru) by Seplat Energy Plc were aimed at “damaging his hard-earned reputation” based on “fictitious allegations” even though the same statement accepted that their client (Austin Avuru) had taken “an ill-advised action”.

The law firm had said this in a statement issued last week and signed by Osaro Eghobamien and Folabi Kuti, its lawyers.

However, the emerging facts seem to bear serious consequences.

Under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020 (CAMA), directors have a duty to exercise their powers and discharge their duties honestly, in good faith and in the best interests of the company. They are also expected to exercise that degree of care, diligence and skill which a reasonably prudent director would exercise in comparable circumstances.

It was learnt that following an enquiry by the Board of Directors of SEPLAT, Avuru had allegedly on December 1, 2020, admitted his conflict of interest in connection with SEPLAT’s business and more particularly its proposed acquisition of some Nigerian assets in which ExxonMobil Corporation has interests.

Avuru also admitted that he had on that date been appointed the Chairman of Chappal Petroleum Development Company Limited (Chappal) and that Chappal had been invited by ExxonMobil Corporation for discussions and possible access to their database in respect of the assets.

Further enquiries by SEPLAT Board revealed that Avuru had already acquired an interest in Chappal over nine months earlier, as far back as March 2020, whilst he was still CEO of Seplat Energy.

More revealing was that the incorporation documents of Chappal as shown at the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) revealed that Avuru was and remained both a founding shareholder and director of Chappal, but he failed to disclose his interests in Chappal to the Board in December 2020.

It was further learnt that prior to December 1, 2020, Avuru was much aware, but failed to disclose that Chappal had put in a bid for the said oil and gas assets.

SEPLAT Board after completing the process of its review was satisfied that Avuru failed or refused to disclose a conflict of interest as soon as he acquired an interest in and was appointed a director of Chappal and became aware that Chappal was bidding for the assets.

Avuru knew that SEPLAT which he was a Non-Executive Director was also interested in the assets and he had participated in SEPLAT’s Board discussions relating to SEPLAT’S bid for the assets.

These findings seemed to have affirmed for Board of SEPLAT that Avuru by his actions clearly breached his fiduciary duties and obligations as a director as stipulated under the existing Nigerian Code of Corporate Governance (NCCG) as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Code of Corporate Governance to which Avuru’s appointment was subject.

Avuru as then Non-Executive Director had a duty to notify SEPLAT of his appointment onto the board of Chappal, bearing in mind that he was the CEO of SEPLAT at the time and both companies operate within the same industry.

SEPLAT Energy has a standard listing on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange (LSE), therefore the company is publicly committed to comply voluntarily with and to abide by the United Kingdom’s Code of Corporate Governance (UK Code).

In accordance with the UK Code provisions, Board directors are not only expected to act in a manner consistent with their duties under company law, but also to uphold the highest standards of integrity.

Prior to appointment into the Board, directors are expected to disclose their significant commitments to the board (together with an indication of the time involved) and additional external appointments are not to be undertaken by directors without prior approval of the board.

By not notifying the SEPLAT board of his appointment to the board of Chappal in March 2020, at a time when Avuru was the CEO of SEPLAT, and not seeking prior approval from the SEPLAT board to take on this new appointment, Avuru acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the provisions of the UK Code and the guidance.

It was further learnt that Avuru also failed to disclose his appointment as a director of Chappal when he accepted the role of a Non-Executive Director (NED) of SEPLAT.

No doubt, prompt and timely disclosure of this board appointment was particularly key in allowing SEPLAT Board to assess the risk of any conflict of interest arising and to take appropriate measures to manage a potential conflict.

Considering the statutory requirement from directors, Avuru had a duty to exercise good faith and a reasonable degree of care and prudence in how Avuru handled the potential conflict.

He failed to exercise his duty of care to SEPLAT by being forthright in disclosing the conflict or likelihood of conflict of interest to SEPLAT, before or promoting/ incorporating Chappal in March 2020.

By failing to promptly disclose his directorship in Chappal, Avuru placed himself in a position where his duties as a director of SEPLAT conflicted with the concurrent opportunities he pursued as founding shareholder and director of Chappal and SEPLAT in a position where it was temporarily unable to take prompt action to manage the potential conflict of interest and to comply with the provisions of CAMA as well as the principles of the NCCG, SEC and UK codes.

For almost one year, Avuru’s attention was said to have been fully with Chappal as against SEPLAT, a situation that was most unfair to SEPLAT, its shareholders and other stakeholders.


Kindly share this post

Ugo Onwuaso is an ICT enthusiast. He believes technology should be used for general good. He holds a Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree from the Lagos state University. Dear Reader, Your support matters. But we believe that technology makes life more exciting and helps improve the lives of people around Nigeria and indeed the world. That is why, we have devoted our energy to independent reportage of technology and finance and how they affect lives. Our incisive and analytical view of how technology news affects the daily life help individuals and organizations make up their minds. Quality journalism costs money. Today, we're asking that you support us to do more. Kindly support our effort to deliver technology and finance journalism to everyone in the world. Donate as little as N1,000. Bank transfers can be made to: UBA Plc 1017156876 Communication Week Media Ltd

News

SERAP Asks Akpabio, Abbas for Explain N1.3Bn Budgeted for ‘Fictitious’ Presidential Council

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has given Godswill Akpabio, Senate President, and Tajudeen Abbas, speaker of the House of Representatives, seven days to explain how over N1.3 billion was allocated in the 2026 Appropriation Act to a presidential council that the Presidency has described as fictitious.

SERAP Asks Akpabio, Abbas for Explain N1.3Bn Budgeted for ‘Fictitious’ Presidential Council

In a Freedom of Information (FoI) request dated July 4, 2026, SERAP asked the National Assembly leadership to release certified copies of all documents related to the approval of the N1,302,978,784 allocation to the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC)/Presidential Economic Advisory Council.

The rights group also called on the National Assembly to invoke its investigative powers under Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution to probe the circumstances surrounding the allocation and identify those responsible for what it described as apparent irregularities in the budget process.

SERAP further requested records identifying the lawmakers and committees that considered the allocation, as well as the public officials or representatives who defended the budget proposal before the committees.

The civil organisation also sought clarification on whether the allocation originated from the Executive’s 2026 Appropriation Bill or was introduced during the legislative appropriation process.

It equally demanded to know whether any lawmaker questioned the legal status or operational mandate of the council before approving the allocation.

The FoI request follows a July 1 statement by the Presidency denying the existence of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and insisting that the Federal Government never created the body.

Describing the conflicting claims as alarming, SERAP said they raised “serious concerns regarding the integrity of Nigeria’s appropriations process, legislative oversight, public financial management, and accountability.”

The FoI request, signed by Kolawole Oluwadare, deputy director, SERAP, stressed that Nigerians have a constitutional right to know whether public funds were appropriated to an entity that does not legally exist.

SERAP said, “Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law, and that the National Assembly has a constitutional responsibility not merely to approve the Executive’s budget proposals but to rigorously scrutinise them before authorising public expenditure.”

The organisation argued that disclosure of the requested documents would enable Nigerians to determine whether the National Assembly fulfilled its constitutional obligations under Sections 80, 81, 88, and 89 of the Constitution in approving the allocation.

SERAP warned that if the requested information is not released within seven days of receipt or publication of the letter, it would initiate legal proceedings to compel the National Assembly to disclose the documents.

The organisation further maintained that making the records public would strengthen confidence in the National Assembly’s credibility, enhance transparency in the appropriation process, and promote accountability in the management of public funds.

It also cited the Freedom of Information Act, the Nigerian Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Tshwane Principles as legal bases for its demand for full disclosure.


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

News

World Bank Sounds Alarm: Low Revenue, Not Debt, Is Nigeria’s Biggest Fiscal Threat

Published

on

Kindly share this post

World Bank has said Nigeria’s greatest fiscal challenge is weak revenue mobilisation rather than excessive borrowing, urging the Federal Government to strengthen revenue generation to support sustainable economic growth and meet its debt obligations.

World Bank Sounds Alarm: Low Revenue, Not Debt, Is Nigeria's Biggest Fiscal Threat

The World Bank Country Director for Nigeria, Mr. Mathew Verghis, stated this during an interview on Channels Television on Friday.

According to him, Nigeria’s debt profile remains moderate by international standards and does not place the country among nations experiencing debt distress.

“From our assessment, Nigeria doesn’t have a high indebtedness problem; it has a low revenue problem,” Verghis said.

He explained that Nigeria’s debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio is lower than that of many comparable economies, adding that the country’s fiscal challenge lies more in its limited revenue base than in the volume of its borrowing.

“When we looked at the numbers, Nigeria is a moderately indebted country, meaning it has less debt relative to its economy than most of its neighbours and many other countries.

“Nigeria is in a very different situation from Ghana, for example, which is going through a debt restructuring,” he said.

Verghis defended government borrowing, describing it as a legitimate tool for financing long-term investments capable of stimulating economic growth and improving citizens’ welfare.

“Nigeria borrows for the same reasons that all countries borrow. If you want to deliver results to people, the money available on an annual basis is not enough.

“So you borrow, deliver results, and that improves your ability to repay,” he said.

He cited electricity infrastructure as an example, noting that expanding access to power for millions of Nigerians would require substantial upfront financing.

“To be able to connect and provide energy to 32 million Nigerians, Nigeria needs to borrow money now.

“But with increased access to energy, the country will become wealthier and better positioned to repay the loans,” he added.

The World Bank official, however, warned that Nigeria’s low revenue generation poses a greater risk to fiscal sustainability than its current debt burden.

“Nigeria’s debt is not particularly high, and in fact, it is quite moderate by international standards.

“Its revenues are very low by international standards, and unless those revenues are raised, it will not be able to pay back debt,” he said.

Verghis said improving revenue mobilisation would enable the government to invest more in critical sectors such as infrastructure, healthcare, education and agriculture, while supporting job creation, strengthening human capital development and reducing poverty.

He noted that the World Bank’s recently unveiled Country Partnership Framework for Nigeria for 2026 to 2032 places job creation at the centre of its support for the country.

According to him, the framework will focus on investments in infrastructure, healthcare, agriculture and digital connectivity to promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth.


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

News

How Fraudsters Emptied a Judge’s Account of N7.2 Million in Midnight Attack

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Ola Olukoyede, chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), has disclosed that the commission recovered more than N7.2 million stolen from the bank account of a serving judge by suspected internet fraudsters in a midnight cyberattack.

How Yahoo Boys Emptied a Judge's Account of ₦7.2 Million in Midnight Attack

Ola Olukoyede, Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Olukoyede made the disclosure at the public presentation of two books authored by retired High Court judge, Justice Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye.

He said the serving judge, who is from a South-South state, contacted him around 1:00 a.m. after receiving multiple debit alerts indicating that funds had been withdrawn from her account.

According to him, the stolen money represented savings the judge had accumulated over six years to finance her child’s education.

Olukoyede said the EFCC immediately swung into action and successfully recovered the entire sum before 6:00 p.m. on the same day.

He said the incident underscored the increasing sophistication of cybercriminals and the urgent need for stronger collaboration among law enforcement agencies, the judiciary and members of the public in tackling financial crimes.

The EFCC chairman also called for amendments to Nigeria’s legal framework to accommodate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

According to him, existing evidence laws should be reviewed to recognise AI-generated evidence as technology continues to reshape crime detection and investigation.

Also speaking at the event, former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), urged anti-corruption agencies to intensify efforts to trace and recover public funds allegedly stolen and stashed in foreign countries.

Agabi stressed the need for sustained collaboration among relevant institutions to strengthen Nigeria’s anti-corruption efforts and improve accountability in public service.

In his remarks, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), called for stricter enforcement of the country’s cybercrime laws to curb the growing menace of internet fraud.

Olanipekun said effective implementation of existing laws, alongside stronger institutional cooperation, would help address the increasing threat posed by cybercriminals to individuals and the nation’s financial system.


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

Trending