The Nation Newspaper

Tag: N50

  • Alleged $50,000 theft: Group, police disagree over N50,000 ‘bribe’

    Was a single mother of two, Blessing Taiwo, unlawfully arrested by operatives of the Anti-Kidnapping unit of the Lagos Police Command and released after paying a N50,000 bribe?

    The above posers remained unanswered yesterday as the police and a civil society coalition, Network on Police Reform in Nigeria (NOPRIN) traded words over the matter.

    The group alleged that the Officer-in-Charge of unit, Akinade Adejobi, a Chief Superintendent of Police (CSP), unlawfully detained Taiwo, following an alleged $50,000 theft case reported by the country representative of Afri Investment, Mrs. Abiola Osagie.

    In a petition to the acting Commissioner of Police (Ag CP,) Imohimi Edgal, the group claimed that the policemen demanded a N70,000 bribe to release Taiwo, alleging that officers of the unit also sexually assaulted the suspect’s younger sister, Florence, who took food to her.

    Adejobi, according to NOPRIN, “probably has some personal things in common” with the complainant, which explained why he interfered in a case of stealing.

    But in a swift reaction, the police command stated that the case was duly transferred to his unit from the State Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Department (SCIID) because of his thoroughness in carrying out investigation.

    Spokesman for the command, Olarinde Famous-Cole, an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) told The Nation that a group of persons were bent on tarnishing the reputation of the officer for refusing to circumvent due process.

    He said: “It is disturbing that people would accuse that senior officer of such things. That case was duly transferred to him from SCIID. He is believed to be a thorough officer and he was asked to investigate the matter.

    “The very day the woman was arrested, people, including journalists, started mounting pressure for her release. They didn’t bother to find out what really happened. She was detained because from police investigation, she changed dollars within the period the money allegedly went missing. There were circumstantial evidence that the police needed to investigate.

    “She was granted administrative bail. The people claiming that money was demanded or received should please come forward with their claims. We would like to know the person they gave the money to.

    “That notwithstanding, the command is investigating the petition including the case of alleged sexual abuse. People should know that we would not hesitate to prosecute those found culpable. And if at the end of the day, these allegations are found to be false, we would prosecute those behind it.”

    In the petition, NOPRIN said it was shocked “at the impunity” with which the OC Anti Kidnapping assumed the role of investigator, prosecutor and executioner.

    It accused the officer of “obvious interest and bias.”

    “That the OC could continue to unjustifiably detain Blessing beyond the duration permitted by law without showing any evidence of her culpability, and refusing all entreaties to either grant her bail or charge her to court, is a clear demonstration of abuse of police powers and violation of the victim’s constitutional rights further elaborated by the Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2011.

    “In the first place, a case of stealing ought not to be taken to or investigated by the Anti-Kidnapping Unit but because the complainant and the OC probably have some personal things in common, the OC decided to do her illegal biddings, which the DPO at Ikoyi professionally refused to do.

    “NOPRIN calls for a prompt investigation of these acts of misconduct and infractions of the law by the OC Anti-kidnapping and some officers under him. All the police officers responsible should be subjected to appropriate disciplinary measures.

    “NOPRIN calls on the CP Lagos to ensure that the police accords adequate remedies, including a written apology to the victim. Finally, NOPRIN will follow up on this case to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to account and the victim’s fundamental rights fully enforced.”

    The Nation gathered that Osagie allegedly left $50,000 in her office before embarking on a trip last month.

    She returned to the country on August 24 and by August 28, discovered that the money was missing.

    Taiwo, it was learnt, converted dollars to naira on August 21, while Osagie was away.

    When The Nation asked her about the source of the dollars, Taiwo said it was money she made during a 2015 training.

    She said: “In 2015, we went for a training and I was given $500. I changed $300 that year and paid my children’s school fees. Last year, I changed another $100. It was the remaining $100 I went and changed on August 21 and I explained that to the police.

    “I also showed them evidence. I did not know she kept money in the office. I did not take any money. It is true that the case was first reported at Ikoyi Police Station and was moved to SCIID, Panti.

    “It was the day we got to Panti that the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) told us that the case had been transferred to Anti-Kidnapping Unit.

    “I do not know about the bribe. It was Pastor Godwin Isaac that gave the money to the policeman. It was not the Officer-in-Charge, not his deputy and not the IPO because they were not around. It was a policeman there that collected the money and I don’t know him.”

    Taiwo’s sister, Folake, who was also at the station, told The Nation that she was outside and did not know who the money was given to.

    She said Pastor Isaac was the one who gave the money to the collector, but the former denied handing over money to any policeman.

    According to Pastor Isaac, it was one of the suspect’s cousins, whom he only met at the station that handed over the money to a policeman at the station.

    Asked if they could identify any of the policemen that allegedly molested Florence, they said no, adding “we couldn’t look them in the face because they were armed.”

  • What is my N50 worth?

    Some years ago, I was in a European country on one of those intensive training programme which allowed you little or no time to hop around or do your shopping. What we used to do then was an adlib kind of thing. As we walked along the streets to the training centre, we would look around for any item that may possibly catch our fancy. If we found any, we’d make a purchase and just toss the item in our wardrobes. Doing this everyday meant that I eventually bought just the items I needed.  On one of those days, I had budgeted 50 Euros for my shopping. I loved the 50 euro best, and I think that this was especially because of its resemblance with our own 50 Naira note. If some of us are familiar with the Euro, you’d ordinarily know that what difference there is with the 50 euro and our own fifty-naira note is in power and dignity. But I didn’t know this at that time. So, I walked that day along the Potsdamer Platz Arcades with Marcos Hamacher our coordinator, my 50 euro note at the ready. But something in the way Hamacher looked, first at me, and at the 50 euro dancing between my fingers again and again stopped me in my tracks. I looked at him. ‘What’s the matter Marco?’, I asked him. He looked forlorn, and at me before saying, ‘Bob, that’s a lot of money you have there…!’

    Incredulity took me over.  I found out eventually that the 50 euro which I was fiddling with could get an average German family by in two weeks. Where I come from in the best of times, a 50-naira note has some ambivalence. It is money used for church offerings, tossed at beggars and you leave it as tip to that little boy who runs your errands. All anyone can buy with it are toffee sweets, tom-tom and groundnuts. In those good old days, even those who sprayed those notes at funeral and at outlandish parties do not get as low as spraying 50 naira notes. The disrespect in spraying either N20 or N50 notes can be better avoided if you swallow your pride and break your N1000 notes into clear crisp notes. For those who brave the odds to spray notes above N50 notes at parties and funerals, they have a way of either reducing their spray to the merest decimal or have their people hang around to ensure that what has been sprayed is collected back pronto.

    But today however, things are at their worst. Most Nigerians can fight to the death to secure and extend the spending life-span of their N50. In Benin, Edo State, (and I guess in many cities in Nigeria), if a commuter has N50 and the fare from point A to point B is N40, commuters and transporters insult each other’s grandfathers and spit in one another’s face just because of the change. Yet it is at these very precarious and uncertain times that we hear of unbelievable sums of stolen money either being hidden in villages, stored in cemeteries or high-brow edifices. The first most of us heard about was in February this year. A former boss at the NNPC was reported to have hidden $9.7million in liquid cash in a village in Kaduna. It was said that that village had no roads, no hospitals, dilapidated schools and had no water. A rough estimate/calculation of that sum of money in our currency would translate in some of the cool billions which would easily take care of those amenities lacking in that village.

    They say the love of money is the root of all evils. In Nigeria, money has become the root of poverty. Nobody yet has been able to sum up the damage which these monies being dug up from villages and abandoned shops and high-brow buildings have wreak on us. But while these monies being recovered, a 2016 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Report positioned Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, on the same low rank, while ‘smaller’ and lesser endowed countries like Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Zambia and Ghana fared better on the HDI statistics.

    • By Bob MajiriOghene Etemiku, Benin.

  • Is N50 stamp duty legal?

    Emokiniovo Dafe-Akpedeye, who holds a First Class degree in Economics and Management and a Law Degree from the University of Oxford, and Joseph Onele, also a First Class holder in Law from the University of Ibadan (UI), ask if the N50 stamp duty is legal.

    • Continued from last week

    Additionally, assuming arguendo that indeed the CBN Circular was made pursuant to the Regulations, one wonders why the CBN Circular has only two exceptions whereas the Regulations in Regulation 620(b) enumerates the situations when payment of stamp duties will be exempted and they include the following: payment of goods supplied or services rendered if the amount is under N1,000; advances of salary; salaries, duty pay, seniority pay; duty tour, travelling and transport allowances; wages; refund of out-of-pocket expenses incurred and paid by officers in the course of their duties; pensions, gratuities, compassionate allowances; repayments of prisoners’ property and sums deposited in the Treasury under the provisions of the Mineral Act; refunds of overpayments to Government; customs drawbacks; custom duties refunded upon certificate of over-entry or upon re-importation certificates; receipts given by officers on behalf of Government in their official capacity; imprest; advances (other than advances of salary) where the officer receives no personal benefit therefrom; receipts given by accused person for money taken from him on arrest; and duplicate receipt required for payment of several amounts.

    Curiously, one wonders why the CBN has chosen to mislead the entire populace into believing that one is liable to pay N50 stamp duty on deposits above N1000, as opposed to one being liable to pay N50 stamp duty for receipts issued for payment for banking service(s) rendered by the bank, where the value of the service(s) rendered is above N1,000.

    In any case, the writers opine that the entire purport of the Regulations in relation to amending the express provision of the SDA is unequivocally null and void because as a subsidiary legislation, it is not made pursuant to the SDA, neither is it endowed with such powers by a primary legislation.

    Revisiting the Federal High Court Decision and the scope of CBN Powers

    Having tested the 2016 Circular against the waters of the SDA and the Regulations and submitted that it could not be rightly argued that the CBN acted within the ambit of either statutory instrument, it become pertinent to consider the propriety of the decision of the Federal High Court (FHC), delivered on 17 April 2014 in Suit No FHC/L/CS/ 1710/2013 – Kasmal International Services Limited v Central Bank of Nigeria (Kasmal Case).

    In Kasmal Case, the gist of the case before FHC was whether the CBN was not duty bound to ensure that all financial institutions, under its regulation, comply with all provisions of the law including the provision of SDA, NIPOST and the Financial Regulations 2009 (Regulations).

    Curiously, the judge in summarising the bone of contention between the parties noted that “The defendant is … being called upon to ensure compliance by the Banks with the remittance of the claimed stamp duty sums, i.e. N50 stamp duty for every transaction in the sum of N1000 and above to NIPOST in accordance with the enabling provisions.” Notably, the Court held inter alia: “[i]t is therefore not in doubt that electronic transfer and tellers amounting to or above the prescribed amount are writings by which deposits are made into bank accounts” and they are receipts within the meaning and intendment of Section 89(1) of the SDA.”

    As a preliminary point, it is apt to mention that the argument put forward by the Plaintiff’s Counsel that the Regulations have increased the minimum sum from N4 to N1000 and have established the value of adhesive (postage) stamp to be used as N50 is grossly misconceived in law. As previously mentioned, only the National Assembly is empowered under Section 116(1) of the SDA,to “increase, diminish or repeal the duty chargeable under any of the heads specified in the Schedule” by passing a resolution. Curiously, one wonders why the CBN who had argued that in the absence of any statutory provision empowering NIPOST to engage a private firm in the collection of stamp duty, the whole transaction is null and void would have failed to draw the attention of the Court to the fact that the “receipt” contemplated under the SDA is only in respect of goods supplied and services rendered and no more.

    Again, it is also quite disturbing that the learned trial Judge failed to answer the fundamental question of the legality the N50 fee being charged as stamp duty which, as earlier discussed, cannot be justified in law and should ordinary have been declared illegal. The authors are equally perturbed that the learned trial Judge failed to give due consideration to the relevant provisions for the SDA, for if this has been done, the honourable trial Judge would have made a finding that the draftsman, as at the time the SDA was enacted did not envisage electronic transfers.

    We shall now proceed to discuss the relevant sections relied upon in Kasmal Case which include sections 33(1)(b), 42(1)(c) of the CBN Act and sections 61(1)(a) of BOFIA. First, we are not unaware that by a community reading ofsections 33(1)(b) and section 42(1)(c) of the CBN Act which provides that: (x) issue guidelines to any person and any institution under its supervision and; (y) seek the cooperation of other banks in Nigeria, to further such policies not inconsistent with the CBN Act and as may in the opinion of the CBN be in the national interest respectively, the CBN is empowered to ensure that all financial institutions comply with every single law of the Federation.Of course, we are equally not blind to the fact that the CBN is entrusted with the duty to promote a sound financial system in Nigeria. The foregoing notwithstanding, we are of the considered view that the power of the CBN, including the power to do any act incidental to the exercise of its power under the CBN Act and even under BOFIA cannot, by any stretch of imagination include the power to enact a subsidiary legislation regulating the regime of stamp duties in Nigeria.  Consequently, it is respectfully submitted that the above stated provisions must be understood in the context of the specific laws.

    As a corollary, if a bank evaded taxes, it is the Federal Inland Revenue Services that would serve default papers and institute actions against the bankpursuant to its powers and duties under the Companies Income Tax Act. Conversely, if a financial institution was cooking its books, the CBN, under its powers in section 61(3) of BOFIA, could order a special examination of its books in the public interest. There is therefore a limit to the supervisory role of the CBN based on the object of the CBN Act and BOFIA.

    In the same vein,section 57 of BOFIA, which gives the CBN power to make regulations,restricts this power to regulations that will give “full effect to the objects and objectives of this Act”. Thus, a perusal of the BOFIA will show that it covers subjects pertaining to the issuing of licences, control of failing banks, ensuring banks maintain a minimum share capital and capital ratio, and controlling the reorganisation of banks among others. These are the objects of the BOFIA and therefore, the CBN’s supervisory role is limited to what is explicitly stated in the Act .

    By the same logic, section 6 of the SDA provides for Commissioners of stamp duties who “shall have the care and management of the duties to be taken under the Act”. Therefore, it can be rightly submitted that any perceived/purported illegality of the banks in non-compliance with the provisions of the SDAis to be considered and dealt with by the”relevant Civil Service Commission”. It is our humble position that it is not for the CBN to regulate any law enacted which may or may not have an impact on financial institutions unless a statute specifically makes the CBN the regulatory authority.

    The authors respectfully opine that neither Counsel nor his Lordship took cognisance of the limitations of the statutory provisions under the CBN Act and BOFIA. As a statutory body, the law is clear that the CBN is only permitted to act within the scope authorised by statute. In fact, copious time was spent in the case analysing whether or not the “supposed” revenue generated from the N50 charge is revenue due to the Federal Government or NIPOST and also whether NIPOST was allowed to sub-contract the collection of the fee pursuant to the NIPOST Act. It is rather disappointing that the legality of the fee, which is the foundation of any Circular, was not discussed in more detail. It is our hope that through this discourse and careful evaluation of the law, the arguments at the Court of Appeal can be refined to focus firmly on the legal underpinning for any charge on banking customers.

     

    Conclusion

     

    One might ask why so much mental effort has gone into producing an article focusing on the illegality of a mere N50 charge. But in a time all Nigerians are tightening the belt on expenditure, every naira counts!N50 will run in thousands and millions yearly. Therefore, until there is an adequate legal basis for such a fee, it should be discarded as maintaining such would amount to affront to our legal jurisprudence. Essentially, this article shows the folly in the CBN’s Circular, in that there is hardly any legal justification based a read of the SDA, Financial Regulations Act, CBN Act and BOFIA.

    In sum, the critical points to take away from this article are that: (x) the relevant sections of the SDA are evident on the fact that it was never within the contemplation of the Act that electronic transfers would be liable to stamp duty; (y) there is no “receipt” in the type contemplated by the SDA in an electronic transfer to warrant the imposition of a duty; (z) the Financial Regulations is inconsistent with the requirements of the SDA and therefore is null and void; and (xx) the CBN acted beyond its powers in making the 2009 and 2016 Circulars.

     

    • The authors can be reached on: e.dafeakpedeye@hotmail.com; ojoseph990@gmail.com

  • Is N50 stamp duty legal?

    Emokiniovo Dafe-Akpedeye, who holds a First Class degree in Economics and Management and a Law Degree from the University of Oxford, and Joseph Onele, also a First Class holder in Law from University of Ibadan (UI), ask if the N50 stamp duty is legal.

    • Continued from last week

    Therefore, it is clear that in this regard, it is the National Assembly that has the power to vary such amounts. As will be discussed later in detail, the Financial Regulations 2009 (the Regulations) was not made via a resolution of the National Assembly. Thus, any declaration by the Regulations stating that a payment of N50 for every N1000 is void ab initio due to its blatant inconsistency with the statutory provision. If at all the stamp duties apply to electronic transfer, then as stated in the Schedule to the Act, for any receipt of N4 or upwards, a duty of 20 kobo is payable. No doubt this proposition poses a problem for collection of the duty since Nigerian Postal Service (NIPOST) no longer sells stamps of 20 kobo. However, just because there is an administrative hurdle does not mean that the clear provisions of the law can be overridden without following the proper procedure laid down by the law, which in this case is the SDA.

    In addition to the foregoing, by Section 115(f) SDA, the President and the Governor of a State are empowered to make regulations in furtherance of the actualisation of the objects and purposes of the SDA. Upon a careful read of the SDA, it is crystal clear that there is no provision in the SDA, which empowers the CBN to either vary the extant provision of the SDA or to expand same, when it so desires. One needs no soothsayer to come to the realisation that the CBN has indeed amassed for itself, powers it was never conferred with. Of course, it is quite elementary that the CBN has neither the power nor authority to act outside the Statute. See Olaniyan v. University of Lagos [1985] NWLR (Pt.9)599.

    In any case, the authors believe that the charging of N50 for every N1000 on electronic transfers is ultra vires and has no legal backing based on the interpretation of the enabling Act, which in the case would be the SDA.

    Having tested the 2016 Circular against the extant provisions of the SDA and making a finding that the 2016 Circular, cannot by any stretch of imagination, be said to have been validly made pursuant to the SDA, it becomes imperative to test the Circular against the waters of the Federal Government Financial Regulations (which was greatly relied on in the 2016 Circular).

    Federal Government Financial Regulations 2009

    Whilst it is not in doubt that the Federal Government Financial Regulations 2009 (the Regulations) seek to regulate all government financial transactions, including the receipt, custody of and accounting for government revenue, the procurement, custody and utilization of government stores and assets, and the disbursement of funds from the major government funds,  a cursory look at the preface to the Regulations will revealthat the Regulations are borne out of the concern of the government to ensure that requisite rules and regulations that would guarantee probity and transparency in the control and management of public funds and resources of government are put in place.

    Further to the foregoing, it is quite instructive to note that Regulation 105 specifically provides that the financial regulations will apply to the Federal Public Service, which in the context of the Regulations means ministries, extra-ministerial offices and other arms of government. As earlier mentioned, the statutory rule of interpretation namely, expressiounius exclusioalterius applies under the Nigerian jurisprudence. See Nawa v. Att., Gen. Cross Rivers State (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 401) 807 at 843, paras. F – H (CA).

    Again, while it may appear quite elementary that the Regulations are a means by which the Government’s Finance and Accounting procedures are regulated, with a view to promoting honesty and transparency, an anomaly exists as to the statute empowering the enactment of the Regulations, a subsidiary legislation. It is a settled principle of law that a subsidiary legislation must be made pursuant to an enabling primary legislation. On this score, it is quite instructive to note the decision of the Court of Appeal in Njoku & Ors. V. Iheanatu & Ors. (2008) LPELR-3871(CA) where it espoused on what a subsidiary legislation is and held as follows:  “A subsidiary legislation…is one that was subsequently made or enacted under and pursuant to the power conferred by the principal legislation…It derives its force and efficacy from the principal legislation to which it is therefore secondary and complimentary.”In contrast, Regulation 105, which empowers the Minister of Finance, to issue from time to time financial regulations merely states that this must be in accordance with existing laws and policies of government. One would have expectedthat the power to make the Regulations would have been traceable to an enabling Act and ultimately, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (the Constitution).

    Of course, the authors are not unaware that the Minister of Finance can lay claim to Section 4(1) of the Finance (Control and Management) Act (the Finance Act) which mandates every person concerned in or responsible for the collection, receipt, custody, issue or payment of public moneys, stores, stamps, investments, securities, or negotiable instruments, whether the property of Government or on deposit with or entrusted to Government or any public officer in his official capacity either alone or jointly with any public officer or any other person, to obey all instructions that may, from time to time, be issued by the Minister or by direction of the Minister in respect to the custody and handling of the same and accounting therefore. It is equally noted that the Finance Act is an Act to provide for the control and management of the public finances of the Federation and for matters connected therewith. Further to the foregoing, one might thusargue that the Regulations were made pursuant to the powers vested in the Minister under the Finance Act.

    Based on the above and as will be shown shortly, it cannot be correct to argue that the CBN has the power to not only expand the provisions of the SDA but to also assert that the Regulations apply to all manners of persons, notwithstanding the nakedness of legal support in this regard. It goes without saying that a body, which is a creation of a statute, cannot do anything at all, unless authorised expressly or impliedly by the Statute or instrument defining its powers.

    However, assuming arguendo that the Regulations indeed apply to all manner of persons and that the CBN can “expand” the provisions of the SDA without recourse to legislative intervention, it is respectfully submitted that the Regulations cannot by any stretch of imagination, provide legal comfort for the 2016 Circular. For instance, Regulation 620 provides inter alia that “Receipts given on payment vouchers are liable to Stamp Duty in accordance with the Stamp Duties Act.” In other words, the only person obligated to pay Stamp Duty in accordance with this provision is the issuer of a receipt given on payment vouchers as required under section 89(2) of the SDA.

    Upon a careful read of the foregoing provision, it is unassailable that the liability to pay N50 stamp duty will only arise where a receipt is given for either payment for goods supplied or for services rendered is above N1,000. Driving the point home, where noreceipt is given, taking for instance, an online transfer to another, it cannot be right to argue that such payment must attract theN50 stamp duty.

    In addition, a situation, like the instant one, where banks and other financial institutions were instructed to charge N50 stamp duty for every deposit (save to one’s account) does not accord with the spirit and intendment of the Regulations as will be shown shortly.

    Assuming without conceding that the applicability of the Regulations is not limited to only members of the Federal Public Service but to all persons, it is the writers’ position that mere deposit of money to someone else’s bank account(s), without more, does not trigger the obligation to pay N50 stamp duty. Rather, what triggers the obligation is the issuance of receipt, if any, by the bank for the banking service(s) rendered and receipts issued for payment of goods. The above submission finds support in the ageless principle of law that where the language of a statute is clear and explicit, they ought to be given their plain and simple meaning as the said words speak for themselves, particularly as they clearly demonstrate the intention of the drafters.

    • To be continued next week

  • Firm sells kerosene to Warri, Udu communities at N50

    People of Pessu in Warri South council area, Ogbe-Ijoh in Warri South-West council area and Aladja in Udu council area, yesterday reaped the goods of subsidised kerosene, which sold at N50 per litre.

    The unusual booty, which was named KERO-Direct, delivered more than 500,000 litres of the domestic petroleum product to the people at a special centre, situated at Pessu market.

    The project, facilitated by A&E Petrol, an indigenous oil and gas company, was targeted at the people in the rural areas of Delta state, especially those in the remote riverine areas.

    Speaking on the choice of Pessu as a selling point, the Chief Executive Officer of A&E Petrol, Chief Ayiri Emami, said his company deemed it necessary to extend the gesture to people in who cannot really say they are part of the main economy of the Warri metropolis, but who live on the city’s fringes.

    Emami, who supervised the sale of the product to the people, thanked the federal government for the privilege given A&E Petrol to assist the less privileged through the sale of subsidized kerosene at N 50 per litre.

    He, however, promised continuity of the Kero-Direct Programme and the possible inclusion of the sale of subsidised petrol so long as his company gets supply consistently.

    He said his company would not sell beyond N50 per litre to any individual to avoid a situation where the product, which is already experiencing scarcity in gas stations, would be hoarded and sold at exorbitant prices.

    He also promised to liaise with the Hon. Minister of Petroleum, Mrs. Deziani Allison Maduekwe and the Delta state government with a view to incorporating the sale of subsidised petrol in the programme across the riverine communities of the state.

    He called on people of the state, especially the riverine communities to support the re-election of President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015 to enable him continue its laudable programmes for Nigerians and people of Niger Delta communities in particular.

    Three beneficiaries of the programme, Madam Polo Emadedon, Rachael Ogboru, a nurse and Olukuyon Emmanuel, who said he is unemployed, thanked A&E Petrol for extending the Kero-Direct Programme to Pessu Water-Side, stating that they hardly get the product to buy and whenever it is available at filling stations, it sells for between N150 and N175 per litre.

  • Firm crashes kerosene price to N50 per litre in Delta communities

    People in Ugborodo and Tebi-Ijoh, both in Warri South-West council area of Delta state are now beneficiaries of special kerosene subsidy called ‘KERO-Direct’, which sees the price of the product crashed from N165 to N50 per litre.

    The company social responsibility project, undertaken by an indigenous oil and gas company, A&E Petrol, sold one million litres of kerosene, at the crashed price, to the people of Ajudaibo Ogidigben, Tebi-Ijoh and other riverine oil and gas bearing communities in the council area.

    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of A&E Petrol, Chief Ayirimi Emami, in an interview while supervising the sale of the people disclosed that the subsidy, which cost his company over N70 million, was the beginning of a long term plan to make kerosene and other petroleum products easily accessible to people of the riverine communities in Delta state at affordable prices.

    Emami further noted that the project was another strategy for reducing the problem of oil theft, which had become a national economic burden to the nation, even as he quickly pointed out that his company’s gesture had no political target, but targeted at reducing the crushing hardship daily faced by the people in the riverrine rural areas of Delta state.

    “This is a genuine effort by our company, having nothing to do with politics, but basically aimed at making life more bearable to our people in the rural areas, especially those living in the communities across waters. Besides, we believe when this is done and sustained, the problem of oil bunkering with greatly be reduced; all what the people want is an affordable life and that is what A&E Petrol is giving them through this subsidy programme”, Emami said.

    According to him, the move by his company sequel to a meeting with the Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Alison Dezani  Madueke and the Delta State Governor, Dr. Emmanuel Uduaghan, wherein a decision was reached that in each kerosene allocation his company gets, sales of kerosene to people of the riverine communities should be subsidized.

    A Cleric, Rev. G.O.T. Aforijuku, Ogidigben Community Youth Chairman, Mr. David Mamah, Chairman of Ajudaibo Community, Japhet Emami, Madam Caroline Majebi, Clifford Ekwale, Sonny Utoro, Funmi Enegho and Madam Eworitsemogha Edun all of whom spoke to newsmen on behalf of other beneficiaries, commended A&E Petrol for the gesture, stressing that it is the first time in the history of Ugborodo communities that they are experiencing the kero direct sale despite being host to key multinational oil companies.

    Investigations revealed that the sale of kerosene in Ugborodo and its neigbouring riverine communities had been between N250 and N500 per litre due to the cost of transporting it from Warri.

    The beneficiaries appealed to the Federal Government through the NNPC to ensure that A&E Petrol get consistent allocation of kerosene and fuel to enable the company continue with the new initiative.