Connect with us

Economy

How Eterna Oil MD Duped FG with Forged Documents—Witness

Published

on

By Modupe Gbadeyanka

More revelations are emerging as the trial of those accused of involvement in the subsidy fraud continues.

At the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja presided over by Justice Hakeem Oshodi, a prosecution witness, Abdul-rasheed Bawa, an investigator with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), alleged that the Managing Director of Eterna Oil and two others forged 30 documents to defraud the federal government in fuel subsidy.

The trio of Mahmud Tukur, Abdullahi Alao and Ochonoghor Alex and their companies Eterna Plc and Axenergy are being prosecuted by the EFCC for defrauding the government to the tune of N3.12 billion.

The defendants had previously been arraigned before Justice Lawal Akapo on December 10, 2015 for allegedly diverting the money obtained from the Federal Government for the purpose of importing Premium Motor Spirit (PMS).

Counsels to the accused had subsequently filed a joint application seeking to quash the charge preferred against their clients by the commission.

According to the EFCC, the defence counsels had argued that the State High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter on the grounds that the allegations against them were oil and gas related, which could only be heard by a Federal High Court.

The accused, through their counsels, had also argued that the prosecution could not establish a prima facie case against them.

In his ruling on the application, Justice Oshodi had dismissed the application and upheld the argument of the prosecution.

The judge also held that the prosecution had successfully established a prima facie case against the accused persons and described the application as “premature”.

At the resumed hearing before Justice Oshodi on Friday, November 24, 2017, the defence, again, argued that the prosecution did not have the fiat of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami (SAN), to prosecute the case.

In his response, the prosecution counsel, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), however, submitted that he did not have to show the defence the fiat of the AGF to prosecute them.

Mr Jacobs further submitted that he could only show his client, the EFCC and the court the fiat and not the defence counsels.

Justice Oshodi upheld the argument of the prosecution counsel, thereby setting the stage for the prosecution witness, Mr Bawa, to give his evidence against the accused.

The accused, among others, claimed that they had imported and discharged PMS sometime in September, 2011 at a tank farm in Lagos, First Deep Water Discovery Limited, for which they were paid the sum of N626 million subsidy.

Also, the accused said they received the sum of N595 million from the government after claiming to have imported and discharged PMS at the same tank farm in Lagos sometime in October, 2011.

However, the witness, in his testimony, told the court how the accused, without any fuel importation, forged over 30 documents and submitted same to the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA), to fraudulently obtain the subsidy for importation of PMS in 2011.

Led in evidence by the prosecution counsel, the witness said: “The owner of the vessel, MT Deepwater EX MT Valle Di Castiglia, and the claimed tank farm of discharge, First Deep Water Discovery Limited, denied the usage of their vessel for the transaction and also confirmed forgery of documents submitted by Eternal to PPPRA.

“The EFCC had access to Lloyds List Intelligence and search conducted for the movement of MT Valle Di Castiglia revealed that the vessel was at the Republic of Turkey all through the period that Eternal claimed to have taken PMS from it with MT Deepwater. So, how can a vessel that was in Turkey give products to another vessel in offshore Cotonou?”

Giving further evidence on both MT Fulmar Ex MT Emirates Star and MT Panther EX MT Emirates Star, the witness said the modus operandi employed by the defendants to defraud the government was alteration of bills of loading dates resulting in higher costs of importation.

He said: “The claimed MT Emirates has a bill of lading dated 28 April, 2011 which gave Eternal a loading cost of about N151.

“However, investigation revealed that the actual mother vessel for the transaction is MT GonHild Kirk, which had a bill of loading with the date of April 3, 2011, with landing cost of about N141.

“The government, acting on forged importation documents indicating MT Emirates Star, paid Eternal about N3.3 billion instead of N2.9 billion. Thus Eterna Oil was overpaid about N300 million.

He added that search on LLyods Intelligence on Emirates Star indicated that the vessel sailed out of Doven Strait, United Kingdom and arrived New York, USA within the period that the Eternal documents claimed that the vessel was discharging its products into MT Fuliman and MT Panthern.

The case was adjourned to February 26, 2018 for continuation of trial.

Modupe Gbadeyanka is a fast-rising journalist with Business Post Nigeria. Her passion for journalism is amazing. She is willing to learn more with a view to becoming one of the best pen-pushers in Nigeria. Her role models are the duo of CNN's Richard Quest and Christiane Amanpour.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Economy

Naira Down Again at NAFEX, Trades N1,359/$1

Published

on

Naira-Yuan Currency Swap Deal

By Adedapo Adesanya

The Naira further weakened against the Dollar in the Nigerian Autonomous Foreign Exchange Market (NAFEX) for the fourth straight session this week on Thursday, February 26.

At the official market yesterday, the Nigerian Naira lost N3.71 or 0.27 per cent to trade at N1,359.82/$1 compared with the previous session’s N1,356.11/$1.

In the same vein, the local currency depreciated against the Pound Sterling in the same market window on Thursday by N8.27 to close at N1,843.23/£1 versus Wednesday’s closing price of N1,834.96/£1, and against the Euro, it crashed by N8.30 to quote at N1,606.89/€1, in contrast to the midweek’s closing price of N1,598.59/€1.

But at the GTBank forex desk, the exchange rate of the Naira to the Dollar remained unchanged at N1,367/$1, and also at the parallel market, it maintained stability at N1,365/$1.

The continuation of the decline of the Nigerian currency is attributed to a surge in foreign payments that have outpaced the available Dollars in the FX market.

In a move to address the ongoing shortfall at the official window, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) intervened by selling $100 million to banks and dealers on Tuesday.

However, the FX support failed to reverse the trend, though analysts see no cause for alarm, given that the authority recently mopped up foreign currency to achieve balance and it is still within the expected trading range of N1,350 and N1,450/$1.

As for the cryptocurrency market, major tokens posted losses over the last 24 hours as traders continued to de-risk alongside equities following Nvidia’s earnings-driven pullback, with Ripple (XRP) down by 2.7 per cent to $1.40, and Dogecoin (DOGE) down by 1.6 per cent to $0.0098.

Further, Litecoin (LTC) declined by 1.3 per cent to $55.87, Ethereum (ETH) slipped by 0.9 per cent to $2,036.89, Bitcoin (BTC) tumbled by 0.7 per cent to $67,708.21, Cardano (ADA) slumped by 0.6 per cent to $0.2924, and Solana (SOL) depreciated by 0.4 per cent to $87.22, while Binance Coin (BNB) gained 0.4 per cent to sell for $629.95, with the US Dollar Tether (USDT) and the US Dollar Coin (USDC) closing flat at $1.00 each.

Continue Reading

Economy

Crude Oil Falls as Geopolitical Risk Around Iran Clouds Supply Outlook

Published

on

Crude Oil Loan Facility

By Adedapo Adesanya

Crude oil settled lower on Thursday as investors tracked developments in talks between the United States and Iran over the latter’s nuclear programme, weighing potential supply concerns if hostilities escalate.

Brent crude futures lost 10 cents or 0.14 per cent to close at $70.75 a barrel, while the US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures depreciated by 21 cents or 0.32 per cent to $65.21 a barrel.

The US and Iran held indirect talks in Geneva on Thursday over their long-running nuclear dispute to avert a conflict after US President Donald Trump ordered a military build-up in the region.

Prices had gained earlier in the session after media reports indicated the talks had stalled over US insistence on zero enrichment of uranium by Iran, as well as a demand for the delivery of all 60 per cent-enriched uranium to the US.

However, prices then retreated after the two countries extended talks into next week, reducing the immediate strike potential.

Iran’s Foreign Minister, who confirmed talks will continue next week, said Thursday’s talks were the most serious exchanges with the US yet, saying Iran clearly laid out its demand for lifting sanctions and the process for relief.

His counterpart from Oman, who is handling the talks, said significant progress was made in Thursday’s talks. The Omani minister’s upbeat assessment followed indirect talks between Iranian Foreign Minister and US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Geneva, with one session in the morning and the second in the afternoon.

He will also hold talks with US Vice President JD Vance and other US officials in Washington on Friday.

The Trump administration has insisted that Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for armed groups in the region must be part of the negotiations.

The American President said on February 19 that Iran must make a deal in 10 to 15 days, warning that “really bad things” would otherwise happen.

On Tuesday, he briefly laid out his case for a possible attack on Iran in his State of the Union speech, underlining that while he preferred a diplomatic solution, he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Meanwhile, the US continues to amass forces in the Middle Eastern region, with the military saying it is prepared to execute orders given by the US President.

Continue Reading

Economy

Why Transparency Matters in Your Choice of a Financial Broker

Published

on

HFM financial broker

Choosing a Forex broker is essentially picking a partner to hold the wallet. In 2026, the market is flooded with flashy ads promising massive leverage and “zero fees,” but most of that is just noise. Real transparency is becoming a rare commodity. It isn’t just a corporate buzzword; it’s the only way a trader can be sure they aren’t playing against a stacked deck. If a broker’s operations are a black box, the trader is flying blind, which is a guaranteed way to blow an account.

The Scam of “Zero Commissions”

The first place transparency falls apart is in the pricing. Many brokers scream about “zero commissions” to get people through the door, but they aren’t running a charity. If they aren’t charging a flat fee, they are almost certainly hiding their profit in bloated spreads or “slippage.” A trader might hit buy at one price and get filled at a significantly worse one without any explanation. This acts as a silent tax on every trade. A transparent broker doesn’t hide the bill; they provide a live, auditable breakdown of costs so the trader can actually calculate their edge.

The Conflict of Market Making

It is vital to know who is on the other side of the screen. Many brokers act as “Market Makers,” which is a polite way of saying they win when the trader loses. This creates a massive conflict of interest. There is little incentive for a broker to provide fast execution if a client’s profit hurts their own bottom line. A broker with nothing to hide is open about using an ECN or STP model, simply passing orders to the big banks and taking a small, visible fee. If a broker refuses to disclose their execution model, they are likely betting against their own clients.

Regulation as a Safety Net

Transparency is worthless without an actual watchdog. A broker that values its reputation leads with its licenses from heavy-hitters like the FCA or ASIC. They don’t bury their regulatory status in the fine print or hide behind “offshore” jurisdictions with zero oversight. More importantly, they provide proof that client funds are kept in segregated accounts. This ensures that if the broker goes bust, the money doesn’t go to their creditors—it stays with the trader. Without this level of openness, capital is essentially unprotected.

The Withdrawal Litmus Test

The ultimate test of a broker’s transparency is how they handle the exit. There are countless horror stories of traders growing an account only to find that “technical errors” or vague “bonus terms” prevent them from withdrawing their money. A legitimate broker has clear, public rules for getting funds out and doesn’t hide behind a wall of unreturned emails. If a platform makes it difficult to see the exit strategy, it’s a sign that the front door should have stayed closed.

Conclusion

In 2026, honesty is the most valuable feature a broker can offer. It is the foundation that allows a trader to focus on the charts instead of worrying if their stops are being hunted. Finding a partner with clear pricing, honest execution, and real regulation is the first trade that has to be won. Flashy marketing is easy to find, but transparency is what actually keeps a trader in the game for the long haul.

Continue Reading

Trending