benz33: too lengthy..........

callydon: Our company under the visionary leadership of Dr. Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah has consistently invested massively in the downstream sector of the economy. From our humble beginning as oil traders, we have grown to become one of the biggest petroleum depot owners, oil transporters and jetty operators, with a vision of building a refinery for which land has been acquired. After the commissioning of our first oil depot in 2007, we went on to develop depots 2 and 3 in 2009. Depots 1, 2 and 3 have a total of 28 loading arms capable of loading 56 millions litres (fifty trucks) every one hour and 1,120 (one thousand, one hundred and twenty) trucks in a day. The depots have an installed storage capacity of 190million litres and loading capacity of about 36million litres load-out every day. We remain the only depot operator with such loading capability in Nigeria. We are also the only company in the downstream sector with a truck park facility capable of accommodating 1,100 (one thousand, one hundred) trucks in Lagos. Our truck park takes care of over 40% of petroleum tankers that come into Lagos to lift petroleum products on a daily basis. This helps in reducing tanker traffic congestion in Lagos roads especially around the various depots in Apapa. (published on elombah.com)

We commenced our jetty development in 2008 such that today we are the only company in the downstream sector with the capability of berthing and discharging products from four vessels simultaneously. In order to construct these four jetties we dredged the water in and around our depots at a huge cost of over N4billion, excluding payments for licences, permits, rates etc. We own one of the biggest fleet of marine tugs and barges in the downstream of the Nigerian economy.

We did all these to help grow the nation’s economy as well as provide employment, without any form of financial support or incentive from any tier of government. It is worthy of note that the development of these depots and jetties contribute about 35% of daily petroleum distribution in Nigeria today. Our customers can attest to this. To make certain that petroleum products are constantly made available to Nigerians, we operate for 24 hours every day of the week, even on public holidays. We do this to ensure that we bridge the gap in petroleum products distribution nationwide and ensuring the elimination of fuel scarcity. It was therefore in appreciation of these giant strides that Prof Pat Utomi had this to say about Ifeanyi Ubah, “To come out of the big challenge to downstream oil marketing in times of severe uncertainty, which has crippled many players in the sector, in such a strong competitive position as to be a market leader, with assets, in several areas that far outstrip much older competitors, both multi-national and indigenous, is a remarkable feat. To do so before one’s 40th birthday is to bring new meaning to accomplishment”.

In supporting the efforts of the Federal Government/NNPC towards eliminating fuel scarcity we also bought a fleet of over 400 trucks, which is the biggest in the NNPC distribution network. All these we achieved at a great cost. Most of the monies for these massive expansions were borrowed from banks at huge interest rates. All our facilities were built without our participating in the Petroleum Subsidy Scheme from 2006 - 2009. Notwithstanding, the cost of these borrowing, we carried on because of our faith in Nigeria and because of our belief that in the absence of steady power supply, a steady supply of petroleum products will not only help grow our economy but will also alleviate the suffering of our people.

Our current travails started with a petition dated September 25, 2012 by the Presidential Committee on the Verification and Reconciliation of Fuel Subsidy Payments (PC) chaired by Aig-Imoukhuede, requested for assistance from the Special Fraud Unit of the Police to investigate subsidy claims by Capital Oil & Gas Industries Limited (our company). The PC claimed that it was carrying out a 100% verification of Shore Tank Certificates and Sales Proceeds for all 2011 Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) imports under the PSF Scheme. The Committee further claimed that it engaged the services of auditors from M/s Ernst & Young to conduct a field examination of oil marketing and trading companies using an approved audit framework. It then went on to list several transactions by our company which it alleged ’appear to have irregularities’. This response is intended to show that the allegations are spurious and merely intended to pull us down in order to achieve Aig-Imoukhuede’s dream of aiding his company - Access Bank - to frustrate our business activities and take over our company.

To show that the whole thing is an ’arrangee’ by the Committee, especially Aig-Imoukhuede on Tuesday October 9, 2012 our Managing Director Dr. Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah honoured an invitation by the Special Fraud Unit of the Nigerian Police Force and ended up being detained till Friday 19 October, 2012. At no time was he declared wanted nor did the police request for his presence and he failed to show up. Various media have since been awash with all forms of unfounded allegations. The smear campaign was so bad that the company was immediately labeled an ’oil thief’ as well as accused of embezzling funds the equivalent of the allocation of eleven states. How sad. We have decided to use this medium to place before the discerning public our side of the story to avoid our silence being taken as an admission of the malicious and spurious allegations intended to destroy our hard-earned reputation. To keep silent will amount to committing corporate suicide. We have chosen to speak out so that our side of the story will be heard, lest our silence be misconceived.

The Aig-Imoukhuede Panel also accused the company of collecting subsidy payments for which proof of mother-vessels were not found in locations claimed at the time of trans-shipment. The Committee made this allegation even though all the relevant documents regarding the importation of the cargoes, including mother and daughter vessels’ documents and the bill of lading were made available to the Committee. We also provided the Committee with the evidence of opening of Form “M”, duly approved by the government appointed agent-COTECNA, establishment of letters of credit by our banker, Access Bank, appointment of an Inspection agent by Access Bank to monitor all operations from loading of the product from the mother vessel to the discharge at the jetty and also the monitoring of the truck-out from the depot. It should be noted out at this point that our bank, Access Bank which performed all the functions as well as financed over 70% of our importation. Aig-Imoukhuede is also the Managing Director and major shareholder of Access Bank. He also has vast interests in many companies that have benefited from the petroleum subsidy scheme. Such companies are also among our very strong competitors.

We intend to react to the allegations against us especially in the light of the auditors’ report which the Committee is presently hinging on to refuse to verify our transactions. These issues form the substance of the petition. We want to use this medium to address them especially in the light of the spurious conclusions contained therein. For ease of reference and presentation we shall adopt the same presentation style of the auditors (M/s Ernst & Young), of putting the transactions in batches as according to them the transactions in the same batch have the same findings.

(A) Transaction 1

Ref. CAP/1433/CAP/PMS/22/11/10

Subsidy; #1,102,732, 121.26

(B) Transaction 2

Ref; CAP/1434CAP/PMS/29/11/10

Subsidy; #803,880,711.89

(C) Transaction 3

Ref: CAP/1460/CAP/PMS/17/12/10

Subsidy: #1,303,164,254.80

(D) Transaction 4

Ref: CAP/1468/CAP/PMS/24/12/10

Subsidy: #1,503,237,849. 30

Before commenting on the Committee’s finding in respect of these transactions, we must quickly point out that these transactions are outside the scope of the powers of the Committee. For the avoidance of doubt the terms of reference of the Committee as clearly set out in Volume 1, of its Report dated sometime in June, 2012 are as follows:

1.To authenticate the backlog of outstanding payments of subsidy payments to marketers in 2011.

2.Verify the legitimacy of backlog of claims already submitted by marketers for 2011.

3.Review any other pertinent issues that may arise from the exercise.

From the foregoing it is clear that the committee acted ultra vires (beyond the scope of its authority) in purportedly embarking on the authentication of subsidy payments made to us for 2010. The Committee was never authorised to verify 2010 transactions. The authentication/ investigation of the 2010 transactions cannot by any stretch of imagination be deemed to be a ’review of any other pertinent issues that may arise from the exercise’. The ultra vires acts of the Committee in embarking on the unauthorized authentication of the said transactions, we will show later in this article that this is part of a ploy by some persons in the Committee to vilify our company at all cost.

The auditors found that the DPR and NPA have records showing the ACTUAL arrival of the various vessels in Nigerian territorial waters. The auditors also found that the company discharged the PMS as well as provided all documents relating to the discharge of PMS. In other words the auditors confirmed/verified that the company discharged the PMS imported in respect of Transactions 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Batch 1of 5). The auditors also confirmed that the DPR Certificates of Quantity verified the quantity of PMS imported. The auditors were further able to reconcile the physical evidence of sales invoices with the soft copies provided by the company. In summary the auditors confirmed the actual arrival of the vessel, the discharge of the PMS and the reconciliation of the physical evidence of sale of the imported PMS.

The auditors also traced the PMS to the loading truck record based on destination and customer. The auditors claimed however that the destination for about 3% of the trucking was not provided. The auditors claimed that they were not able to reconcile about 30% of sales proceeds to the bank statements provided by the company. The auditors rounded off by claiming that they could not conclude on the shipments because 2010 data was not received from the outstanding agencies (NIMASA and NAVY). How ridiculous.

The auditors’ conclusion in many respect therefore vindicated us as regards the falsehood which the public has been fed that the company was among those who collected subsidy payments without importing any PMS. The vindication is so extensive that it goes as far as confirming that at least 97% of the imported PMS was also trucked to and delivered in many destinations in the country. Surely it accords with commonsense that if you imported nothing, nothing could be sold and or delivered!

This is where the auditors’ report suddenly took a wrong turn. Having confirmed that the PMS was variously discharged, sold, loaded and trucked, does it not amount to standing logic on its head for these auditors to claim that because they are yet to get outstanding data from the NAVY and NIMASA, they cannot verify these transactions. These are the same auditors who had earlier stated that these importations were independently verified by the documents from the DPR. The auditors finally stated that they have written to the NAVY and NIMASA to avail them with these documents. It was therefore based on these findings that the PC referred the matter to the SFU for investigation. How sad! What more do they want?. Must they go to even ridiculous lengths to embarrass us, deprive us of payments due to us and damage our business? It appears the auditors set out to do their master’s bidding from this point.

The Presidential Committee (PC) decided that these transactions were suspicious and therefore MUST be investigated based on the shoddy work by the auditors. The auditors having verified that from the ’bank statements provided’ by the company, claimed that they could not reconcile about 30% of the sale proceeds as they claimed that their search could not locate the sales proceeds in the ’bank statements provided’. Why didn’t the auditors and or the Committee invite us to provide additional documents i.e. if one is to believe that we promised to bring additional documents but never did. It never happened that way. In any case why were other companies invited and are still being invited to clarify issues and or to supply additional documents but we were not? Why did they rush to the police without giving a fair hearing? We leave this to Nigerians to judge!

How sad. How does one explain that the auditors having confirmed that these vessels arrived in Nigeria, that the quantity was ’independently verified by the DPR, PPPRA and other agencies, PMS was discharged, sold, trucked and large percent of the sales proceeds reconciled, suddenly becomes helpless when it comes to verifying the transactions. The auditors suddenly declined to verify these transactions by claiming that they MUST get a confirmation of the vessels’ arrival from the NAVY and or NIMASA. How convenient!!

The ’adverse’ report by the auditors was all that the Committee was waiting for to move in for the kill. It suddenly called in the SFU to investigate. Couldn’t the PC (the Committee) have awaited the reply from the NAVY and NIMASA before taking further steps in the matter?. In any case, will any negative response from the NAVY and NIMASA supercede the various findings by the auditors showing importation, actual arrival of the vessels, discharge and sale?. Since when did actual arrival of a vessel in Nigeria become speculative and not real?. In any case no vessel can arrive in Nigerian territorial waters if the Navy did not authorise the arrival. We did in fact furnish the auditors with proof of these.

We must not lose sight of the essence of the probe. The probe became necessary as a result of the wide-spread allegations that many oil marketers claimed payment under the Subsidy Scheme without importing PMS at all. We must therefore keep this in mind at all times. Thus the probe as far as it concerned us should be geared towards proving this and not trying to find any and every reason under the sun to demonize us. To show the desperation in ’trying to get us at all cost’, the Committee focused on the above transactions which do not fall within the range of the transactions it was authorised to investigate. Does it make sense that the vessels ACTUALLY arrived in Nigeria, discharged PMS, sold and delivered the PMS, received sales proceeds and then the company is still found not to have imported PMS? Nothing can be more ridiculous! The decision to refer the transactions to the SFU for investigations no doubt lends credence to our earlier assertions that the Committee is merely out to witch-hunt us, destroy our business and take over the same.

(E) TRANSACTION 10

Ref: CAP/1778/CAP/PMS/07/06/11

Subsidy; #2,490,576,987.15

(F) TRANSACTION 16

Ref: CAP/1976/CAP/PMS/14/08/11

SUBSIDY: #984,440,711.38

(G) TRANSACTION 17

Ref: CAP/1996/CAP/PMS/03/09/11

SUBSIDY: #1,480,440,043.58

(H) TRANSACTION 26

Ref: CAP/2274/CAP/PMS/30/12/11

SUBSIDY: #2,110,438,332.44

The auditors found from information they obtained from governmental agencies (DPR, NAVY, NPA and NIMASA) that there is evidence from these agencies showing the vessels mentioned in respect of the transactions 10, 16 & 17 actually arrived in Nigerian territorial waters. Same is also true of transactions 17 and except that the auditors claimed that the NAVY does not have any evidence that the vessels in respect of transaction 17 and 26 arrived in Nigerian territorial waters, while NPA records do not show the arrival of the vessel in respect of Transaction 26 even though NIMASA records contains same. They however claimed that the daughter vessels’ bills of laden provided by the company did not show details of letters of credit and Form M for the respective transactions. Indeed!! These transactions were financed by Access Bank. The auditors may need to be educated that it is impossible for any vessel to arrive in Nigeria without clearance by the NAVY. Therefore if the vessel ACTUALLY arrived the NAVY must have cleared it to berth in the territorial waters of Nigeria.

The auditors also found that all the records provided by us with regard to discharge of PMS in respect of the transactions matched the documents obtained from the relevant agencies which authenticated the company’s records. They however claimed that the independent auditor did not authenticate Transaction 10. The independent auditor however authenticated Transactions 16, 17 and 26 yet the auditors refused to verify them. We can all see how the goal post kept changing. There must be an absurd reason at every point so that our transactions will not be verified and/or authenticated. What manner of auditors are these?. Of-course any act or omission by any person or government must be blamed on us.

Just as happened with the transactions in BATCH 1 of 5, the auditors claimed that from the ’bank statements provided’ by the company, they could not reconcile about 30% of the sale proceeds as they claimed that their search could not locate the sales proceeds in the ’bank statements provided’. Invariably the auditors verified 70% of the sale of the PMS from the ’bank statements provided’ by the company, BUT claimed that they could not reconcile about 30% of the sale proceeds as they claimed that their search could not locate the sales proceeds in the ’bank statements provided’. We will deal with this issue of reconciliation of sale proceeds in the concluding part of this article, in the light of earlier findings by the Committee which showed that CBN examiners verified the existence of proof of sales proceeds from our banks.

As usual the auditors also claimed that the destination for about 3% of the trucking was not provided by the company, as such they were not able to trace where the PMS was delivered. This appears to be a familiar pattern of making sure that everything can either not be verified or reconciled so that we must have a case to answer.

According to the auditors’ reasoning , notwithstanding that NIMASA, NPA and DPR confirmed the arrival of the vessels as well as the discharge of the requisite quantity of PMS, and the NAVY records has ’no data’ on the same, then it must only mean that the company imported no PMS!! As we noted earlier no vessel that is ’confirmed to have actually arrived in the territorial waters of Nigeria can berth without clearance from the NAVY. The auditors must know that Nigeria is not that porous for a vessel to arrive in the country and the NAVY will not be aware.

In any case if as claimed by the auditors the NAVY records have ’no data’ on the arrival of the vessel, MUST we be made to suffer for that failure?. Does it mean that the confirmation by NIMASA, NPA and DPR of the arrival of the vessels as well as the discharge of the requisite quantity of PMS in Nigeria amounts to nothing because NAVY records have ’no data’ on the arrival.

We also showed evidence of compliance with NPA, NAVY, PPPRA & DPR regulations, yet the same Aig-Imoukhuede of Access bank claimed that we fraudulently received payment for subsidy. One may wonder why. One does not need to be a sorcerer to appreciate why Aig-Imoukhuede acted in a manner very much reminiscent of a sheriff in the Wild West in U.S.A. who while speaking of a man who was alleged to be a horse thief, said: ’’We will give him a fair trial and after that we will hang him’’. The reason for the unnecessary prejudice and the devil-may-care attitude shown by the Aig-Imoukhuede Committee betrays an indecent primordial intent of destruction of our hard-earned reputation under the guise of trying to catch a ’subsidy thief’. How else can he break up and take us over, except by using his new found power to starve us of funds and then exercise the right of a creditor (Access Bank) to move in and take us as spoils of war.

The auditors were hardly independent. They did the bidding of their master. Thus they were ready to say and do anything. Is it not regrettable that to the auditors it did not matter that they (auditors) have confirmed everything up to sales, trucking and delivery as well as sales proceeds but could not verify the transactions. The company MUST be maligned and publicly embarrassed as a ’subsidy thief’. How sad. Having confirmed that these vessels arrived in Nigeria, the quantity was ’independently verified by the DPR’, PMS was discharged, sold, trucked and large percent of the sales proceeds reconciled, shouldn’t the PC have awaited the reply from the NAVY and NIMASA before taking further steps in the matter. Will any negative response from the NAVY and or NIMASA supercede the various findings by the auditors showing importation, discharge and sale. We can only conclude that nothing short of seeing to our company’s downfall will be acceptable to these people. We will hold our peace and God will fight for us.

It is worthy of note that the Committee claimed that the mother vessels claimed were not found in the locations claimed by the company. Without ascertaining from the Company’s supplier about the authenticity of the attestation by our suppliers to show the mother vessel MT HARUNA EXPRESS was offshore Cotonou for the ship-to-ship transfer by the daughter vessel as stated by us, the Committee discarded same. It also failed to ascertain from our suppliers’ whom we stated charters the vessels and loads the PMS Free On Board, about this matter. We also wish to state that we are not usually the charterers of the vessels and as such are never in control of mother vessels. In any case there was no government policy in place at the time which required oil marketing companies/importers to obtain the full documentation of mother vessels.

As noted above the auditors’ conclusion in many respect vindicated the company as regards the falsehood which the public has been fed that the company was among those who collected subsidy payments without importing any PMS. The vindication is so extensive that it goes as far as confirming that at least 97% of the imported PMS was also trucked to and delivered in many destinations in the country. Surely it accords with commonsense that if you imported nothing, nothing could be sold and or delivered! If PMS from a vessel which was confirmed by the various government agencies as well as the auditors, to have ACTUALLY arrived in Nigerian territorial was delivered to various locations in Nigeria, and the sales proceeds also confirmed why weren’t the transactions verified, if not for some ulterior motive?. This comment also applies to the remaining three batches.

(I) TRANSACTION 7

Ref: CAP/1542/CAP/PMS/02/02/11

SUBSIDY: #1,559,875,069.76

(J) TRANSACTION 8

Ref: CAP/1547/CAP/PMS/11/02/11

SUBSIDY: #1,635,078,675.41

(K) TRANSACTION 9

Ref: CAP/1747/CAP/PMS/07/05/11

SUBSIDY: #2,467,281,093.60

(L) TRANSACTION 11

Ref: CAP/1830/CAP/PMS/25/06/11

SUBSIDY: #2,500,589,236.80

(M) TRANSACTION 12

Ref: CAP/1878/CAP/PMS/11/07/11

SUBSIDY: #2,116,460,530.87

(N) TRANSACTION 15

Ref: CAP/1978/CAP/PMS/12/08/11

SUBSIDY: #1,129,882,062.96

(O) TRANSACTION 18

Ref: CAP/2047/CAP/PMS/15/09/11

SUBSIDY: 1,129,882,062.90

Just like the earlier batches the auditors verified that the vessels actually arrived in Nigerian territorial waters and discharged PMS. The DPR vessel entry record also showed that the vessels actually discharged PMS in Nigeria. They also found physical evidence of sales reconciliation with the soft copies of sales records provided by the company. The auditors’ comments about the trucking and verification of sales proceeds are in line with the earlier batches. We therefore adopt our earlier comments.

The PC claimed that a review of the bill of lading in respect of our petrol import on 15th August 2011, showed that the letter of attestation did not state that MT Haruna arrived offshore Cotonou at the time of transaction and that there is no record of the mother vessel or daughter vessel bill of lading. The auditors in their report however stated that, “Our checks with all relevant agencies relevant to the shipping aspect of these transactions, revealed that NIMASA, NAVY and NPA have records showing the vessels’ arrival in Nigerian territorial waters.

At this juncture, we would like to know whether the Committee is suggesting that the various governmental agencies whose records confirm the arrival of the vessels and discharge of PMS, lack credibility that they do not trust entries in the records? If this be so, then the Committee should come out openly to indict such agencies, so that we will know that the Committee is saying that their records are not accurate. Yet when it suits the same Committee it insists that it cannot verify a transaction because ’no data about the transaction could be found in their records’.

(P) TRANSACTION 13

Ref: CAP/1875/CAP/PMS/25/07/11

SUBSIDY: 2,477,183,781.96

(Q) TRANSACTION 23

Ref: CAP/2206/CAP/PMS/20/11/11

SUBSIDY: #2,086,974,929.52

The auditors verified the actual arrival discharge, sale and trucking of the PMS in Nigeria. They only made their usual observation about the inability to reconcile 30% of the sales proceeds from the statements of accounts provided by the company as well as the 3% of the destination of the PMS delivered.

As noted earlier the auditors’ conclusions in many respect vindicated the company as regards the falsehood which the public has been fed that the company was among those who collected subsidy payments without importing any PMS. The vindication is so extensive that it goes as far as confirming that at least 97% of the imported PMS was also trucked to and delivered in many destinations in the country.

(R) TRANSACTION 5

Ref: CAP/1469/CAP/PMS/11/01/11,

SUBSIDY: #1,499,174,844.75

(S) TRANSACTION 6

REF: CAP/1470/CAP/PMS/17/01/11

SUBSIDY: #1,539,370,923.75

(T) TRANSACTION 14

REF: CAP/1972/CAP/PMS/08/08/11

SUBSIDY: 1,992,830,067.19

(U) TRANSACTION 19

REF: CAP/2203/CAP/PMS/06/10/11

SUBSIDY: #2,719,865,676.18

(V) TRANSACTION 20

Ref; CAP/2196/CAP/PMS/10/10/11

SUBSIDY; #2,022,993,488.88

(W) TRANSACTION 21

Ref: CAP/2199/CAP/PMS/10/11/11

SUBSIDY: #1,000,400,708.31

(X) TRANSACTION 22

Ref: CAP/2197/CAP/PMS/17/11/11

SUBSIDY: #989,889,970.70

(Y) TRANSACTION 24

Ref: CAP/2204/CAP/PMS/25/11/11

SUBSIDY: #826,738,244.50

(Z) TRANSACTION 25

Ref: CAP/2230/CAP/PMS/31/10/11

SUBSIDY: #1,989,174,295.62

The auditors confirmed records kept by NPA and NIMASA that the vessels involved in the transactions under this batch actually arrived in Nigeria as well as discharged the PMS in Nigeria. They only raised observations about perceived discrepancies in Maritime Insurance Certificates and Form M. Based on these observations they reached conclusions without drawing the company’s attention to the same so as to elicit their reaction and or explanation neither did they write to the issuing banks or insurance company for their comments/explanations.

They also confirmed that the records which the company provided matched all documents supplied by all the relevant agencies involved in the discharge which authenticated the discharge certificate. Sales and distribution were also confirmed.

At this point it is imperative for us to state that the auditors’ report as regards sales proceeds for the 2011 transactions is of doubtful authority as it materially contradicts and/or is in conflict with the Committee’s report. The Committee in writing the petition to SFU appeared to have accepted the auditors’ conclusion even in the face of manifest inconsistency with the Committee’s report. How can a Committee saddled with so serious a responsibility not have a firm grasp of the issues involved? Why would such a Committee blow hot and cold at the same time?

At page 81 of its report the Committee stated that at the request of the Committee, the CBN sent examiners from the departments of Banking Supervision and Trade & Exchange to review the import documentation and evidence of sales proceeds for oil marketing and trading companies with authorised dealers of foreign exchange (banks) in respect of claims submitted by the companies for 2011. These examiners were at the Banks that processed the 857 (eight hundred and fifty seven) claims which were submitted to the PPPRA, to verify the claims. According to the Committee Report the examiners adopted the following methodology:

1.A schedule of the subsidy claims submitted by for oil marketing and trading companies was obtained from PPPRA containing 857 transactions.

2.The schedule was sorted by banks and the transactions were thereafter allocated to examiners by bank for verification;

3.Transactions files of all the customers were reviewed to ascertain the adequacy of documentation and compare the information contained therein with the information in the claims submitted to PPPRA;

4.The volume of petroleum products discharged in litres was confirmed from the DPR product certificate by converting the quantity in metric tonnes to litres (using the conversion rate of 1.341Litres/MT obtained from PPPRA and compared with the volume in litres used by PPPRA as the basis for subsidy payments;

5.The Naira current accounts of the for oil marketing and trading companies were reviewed to ascertain the nature of funding of transactions and to verify the receipt of sales proceeds;

6.The banks were requested to populate a sales proceeds template designed to capture inflows into accounts in respect of the transactions.

The Committee concluded at page 82 of the Report that “Seven hundred and forty five transactions were found to have inflows of Naira proceeds which appeared commensurate to the value of the imported products…..A total of 112 transactions did not have evidence of sales proceeds based on banks’ available records at the date of verification” emphasis supplied. The 112 transactions did not have evidence of sales proceeds based on banks’ available records at the date of verification, were listed therein form pages 81-85, and the name of CAPITAL OIL & GAS INDS LTD was not listed therein.

In a very worrisome and offhand manner, these auditors reached a conclusion different from that of CBN examiners who were brought in at the instance of the Committee and whose findings the Committee accepted in her Report. This is not the end of the story. The Committee which had actually made a contrary finding in its June 2012 Report, suddenly woke up from a deep sleep and accepted the auditors’ lame finding in this regard despite the detailed work and finding of the CBN examiners. The Committee conveniently forgot that these examiners from the department of Banking Supervision and Trade & Exchange of the CBN did extensive work which it accepted. Is it not clear that the Committee will do this about-turn in order to nail CAPITAL OIL & GAS INDUSTRIES LTD. It appears that its motto in this regard is ’anything as long as we nail Capital Oil & Gas.

These examiners we noted earlier reviewed the import documentation and evidence of sales proceeds in the various banks and confirmed that we have evidence of sales proceeds. Their finding was accepted by the Committee. What then happened between then and the time M/s Ernst & Young were engaged. What changed to warrant there recurring findings that 30% of our sales proceeds could not be reconciled with the statements of account we presented. What better reconciliation could Ernst & Young auditors have done that will be better than the CBN examiners who went to the banks and examined the import documentation and reconciled the accounts with regard to sales proceeds?. Your guess is as good as ours!

Does this not show that the Committee is ready to ridicule itself in order to have our company black-listed and stopped from collecting our subsidy payments so as to meet our financial obligations and remain in business?. Is this not suspicious, moreso when the Committee has adopted same in its report, when it concluded at page 86 that these 112 companies (which excluded Capital Oil & Gas Ind. Ltd.) are to provide proof of sales proceeds?. How ridiculous can things get?. The country is presently experiencing worsening fuel shortage; nobody should be allowed to disrupt the supply chain by putting his interest ahead of the nation’s interest.

We have gone through the worst period of our business since February this year when the investigation of subsidy payments began. The House of Representatives cleared us. The first PC unfortunately indicted us. We challenged the finding as being hasty. The subsequent Committees set up have not succeeded in doing a blame-free work. It is in the light of this that we request you to objectively look into this matter.

We have put our trust in God. He alone will save us from the hands of this buccaneer who is out to rape and plunder us. It is a widely held belief that Aig-Imoukhuede is positioning himself and parading the corridors of power to be appointed the next central bank governor and/or Finance Minister. A fine ambition but it is instructive to remind him that he who must kill to attain a position may have misfortune as sentinel at the door of his new position.

May we at this juncture thank friends, well wishers and customers who have kept faith with us, through their prayers, support and encouragement even as we have remained calm in the face of such a glaring campaign of calumny and blackmail, rather we have remained consistent in the service to our nation by daily dispensing over 35% of national PMS consumption from our depot.

We will keep you updated as events unfold.

Management

(published on elombah.com)

callydon: Our company under the visionary leadership of Dr. Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah has consistently invested massively in the downstream sector of the economy. From our humble beginning as oil traders, we have grown to become one of the biggest petroleum depot owners, oil transporters and jetty operators, with a vision of building a refinery for which land has been acquired. After the commissioning of our first oil depot in 2007, we went on to develop depots 2 and 3 in 2009. Depots 1, 2 and 3 have a total of 28 loading arms capable of loading 56 millions litres (fifty trucks) every one hour and 1,120 (one thousand, one hundred and twenty) trucks in a day. The depots have an installed storage capacity of 190million litres and loading capacity of about 36million litres load-out every day. We remain the only depot operator with such loading capability in Nigeria. We are also the only company in the downstream sector with a truck park facility capable of accommodating 1,100 (one thousand, one hundred) trucks in Lagos. Our truck park takes care of over 40% of petroleum tankers that come into Lagos to lift petroleum products on a daily basis. This helps in reducing tanker traffic congestion in Lagos roads especially around the various depots in Apapa. (published on elombah.com)

We commenced our jetty development in 2008 such that today we are the only company in the downstream sector with the capability of berthing and discharging products from four vessels simultaneously. In order to construct these four jetties we dredged the water in and around our depots at a huge cost of over N4billion, excluding payments for licences, permits, rates etc. We own one of the biggest fleet of marine tugs and barges in the downstream of the Nigerian economy.

We did all these to help grow the nation’s economy as well as provide employment, without any form of financial support or incentive from any tier of government. It is worthy of note that the development of these depots and jetties contribute about 35% of daily petroleum distribution in Nigeria today. Our customers can attest to this. To make certain that petroleum products are constantly made available to Nigerians, we operate for 24 hours every day of the week, even on public holidays. We do this to ensure that we bridge the gap in petroleum products distribution nationwide and ensuring the elimination of fuel scarcity. It was therefore in appreciation of these giant strides that Prof Pat Utomi had this to say about Ifeanyi Ubah, “To come out of the big challenge to downstream oil marketing in times of severe uncertainty, which has crippled many players in the sector, in such a strong competitive position as to be a market leader, with assets, in several areas that far outstrip much older competitors, both multi-national and indigenous, is a remarkable feat. To do so before one’s 40th birthday is to bring new meaning to accomplishment”.

In supporting the efforts of the Federal Government/NNPC towards eliminating fuel scarcity we also bought a fleet of over 400 trucks, which is the biggest in the NNPC distribution network. All these we achieved at a great cost. Most of the monies for these massive expansions were borrowed from banks at huge interest rates. All our facilities were built without our participating in the Petroleum Subsidy Scheme from 2006 - 2009. Notwithstanding, the cost of these borrowing, we carried on because of our faith in Nigeria and because of our belief that in the absence of steady power supply, a steady supply of petroleum products will not only help grow our economy but will also alleviate the suffering of our people.

Our current travails started with a petition dated September 25, 2012 by the Presidential Committee on the Verification and Reconciliation of Fuel Subsidy Payments (PC) chaired by Aig-Imoukhuede, requested for assistance from the Special Fraud Unit of the Police to investigate subsidy claims by Capital Oil & Gas Industries Limited (our company). The PC claimed that it was carrying out a 100% verification of Shore Tank Certificates and Sales Proceeds for all 2011 Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) imports under the PSF Scheme. The Committee further claimed that it engaged the services of auditors from M/s Ernst & Young to conduct a field examination of oil marketing and trading companies using an approved audit framework. It then went on to list several transactions by our company which it alleged ’appear to have irregularities’. This response is intended to show that the allegations are spurious and merely intended to pull us down in order to achieve Aig-Imoukhuede’s dream of aiding his company - Access Bank - to frustrate our business activities and take over our company.

To show that the whole thing is an ’arrangee’ by the Committee, especially Aig-Imoukhuede on Tuesday October 9, 2012 our Managing Director Dr. Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah honoured an invitation by the Special Fraud Unit of the Nigerian Police Force and ended up being detained till Friday 19 October, 2012. At no time was he declared wanted nor did the police request for his presence and he failed to show up. Various media have since been awash with all forms of unfounded allegations. The smear campaign was so bad that the company was immediately labeled an ’oil thief’ as well as accused of embezzling funds the equivalent of the allocation of eleven states. How sad. We have decided to use this medium to place before the discerning public our side of the story to avoid our silence being taken as an admission of the malicious and spurious allegations intended to destroy our hard-earned reputation. To keep silent will amount to committing corporate suicide. We have chosen to speak out so that our side of the story will be heard, lest our silence be misconceived.

The Aig-Imoukhuede Panel also accused the company of collecting subsidy payments for which proof of mother-vessels were not found in locations claimed at the time of trans-shipment. The Committee made this allegation even though all the relevant documents regarding the importation of the cargoes, including mother and daughter vessels’ documents and the bill of lading were made available to the Committee. We also provided the Committee with the evidence of opening of Form “M”, duly approved by the government appointed agent-COTECNA, establishment of letters of credit by our banker, Access Bank, appointment of an Inspection agent by Access Bank to monitor all operations from loading of the product from the mother vessel to the discharge at the jetty and also the monitoring of the truck-out from the depot. It should be noted out at this point that our bank, Access Bank which performed all the functions as well as financed over 70% of our importation. Aig-Imoukhuede is also the Managing Director and major shareholder of Access Bank. He also has vast interests in many companies that have benefited from the petroleum subsidy scheme. Such companies are also among our very strong competitors.

We intend to react to the allegations against us especially in the light of the auditors’ report which the Committee is presently hinging on to refuse to verify our transactions. These issues form the substance of the petition. We want to use this medium to address them especially in the light of the spurious conclusions contained therein. For ease of reference and presentation we shall adopt the same presentation style of the auditors (M/s Ernst & Young), of putting the transactions in batches as according to them the transactions in the same batch have the same findings.

(A) Transaction 1

Ref. CAP/1433/CAP/PMS/22/11/10

Subsidy; #1,102,732, 121.26

(B) Transaction 2

Ref; CAP/1434CAP/PMS/29/11/10

Subsidy; #803,880,711.89

(C) Transaction 3

Ref: CAP/1460/CAP/PMS/17/12/10

Subsidy: #1,303,164,254.80

(D) Transaction 4

Ref: CAP/1468/CAP/PMS/24/12/10

Subsidy: #1,503,237,849. 30

Before commenting on the Committee’s finding in respect of these transactions, we must quickly point out that these transactions are outside the scope of the powers of the Committee. For the avoidance of doubt the terms of reference of the Committee as clearly set out in Volume 1, of its Report dated sometime in June, 2012 are as follows:

1.To authenticate the backlog of outstanding payments of subsidy payments to marketers in 2011.

2.Verify the legitimacy of backlog of claims already submitted by marketers for 2011.

3.Review any other pertinent issues that may arise from the exercise.

From the foregoing it is clear that the committee acted ultra vires (beyond the scope of its authority) in purportedly embarking on the authentication of subsidy payments made to us for 2010. The Committee was never authorised to verify 2010 transactions. The authentication/ investigation of the 2010 transactions cannot by any stretch of imagination be deemed to be a ’review of any other pertinent issues that may arise from the exercise’. The ultra vires acts of the Committee in embarking on the unauthorized authentication of the said transactions, we will show later in this article that this is part of a ploy by some persons in the Committee to vilify our company at all cost.

The auditors found that the DPR and NPA have records showing the ACTUAL arrival of the various vessels in Nigerian territorial waters. The auditors also found that the company discharged the PMS as well as provided all documents relating to the discharge of PMS. In other words the auditors confirmed/verified that the company discharged the PMS imported in respect of Transactions 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Batch 1of 5). The auditors also confirmed that the DPR Certificates of Quantity verified the quantity of PMS imported. The auditors were further able to reconcile the physical evidence of sales invoices with the soft copies provided by the company. In summary the auditors confirmed the actual arrival of the vessel, the discharge of the PMS and the reconciliation of the physical evidence of sale of the imported PMS.

The auditors also traced the PMS to the loading truck record based on destination and customer. The auditors claimed however that the destination for about 3% of the trucking was not provided. The auditors claimed that they were not able to reconcile about 30% of sales proceeds to the bank statements provided by the company. The auditors rounded off by claiming that they could not conclude on the shipments because 2010 data was not received from the outstanding agencies (NIMASA and NAVY). How ridiculous.

The auditors’ conclusion in many respect therefore vindicated us as regards the falsehood which the public has been fed that the company was among those who collected subsidy payments without importing any PMS. The vindication is so extensive that it goes as far as confirming that at least 97% of the imported PMS was also trucked to and delivered in many destinations in the country. Surely it accords with commonsense that if you imported nothing, nothing could be sold and or delivered!

This is where the auditors’ report suddenly took a wrong turn. Having confirmed that the PMS was variously discharged, sold, loaded and trucked, does it not amount to standing logic on its head for these auditors to claim that because they are yet to get outstanding data from the NAVY and NIMASA, they cannot verify these transactions. These are the same auditors who had earlier stated that these importations were independently verified by the documents from the DPR. The auditors finally stated that they have written to the NAVY and NIMASA to avail them with these documents. It was therefore based on these findings that the PC referred the matter to the SFU for investigation. How sad! What more do they want?. Must they go to even ridiculous lengths to embarrass us, deprive us of payments due to us and damage our business? It appears the auditors set out to do their master’s bidding from this point.

The Presidential Committee (PC) decided that these transactions were suspicious and therefore MUST be investigated based on the shoddy work by the auditors. The auditors having verified that from the ’bank statements provided’ by the company, claimed that they could not reconcile about 30% of the sale proceeds as they claimed that their search could not locate the sales proceeds in the ’bank statements provided’. Why didn’t the auditors and or the Committee invite us to provide additional documents i.e. if one is to believe that we promised to bring additional documents but never did. It never happened that way. In any case why were other companies invited and are still being invited to clarify issues and or to supply additional documents but we were not? Why did they rush to the police without giving a fair hearing? We leave this to Nigerians to judge!

How sad. How does one explain that the auditors having confirmed that these vessels arrived in Nigeria, that the quantity was ’independently verified by the DPR, PPPRA and other agencies, PMS was discharged, sold, trucked and large percent of the sales proceeds reconciled, suddenly becomes helpless when it comes to verifying the transactions. The auditors suddenly declined to verify these transactions by claiming that they MUST get a confirmation of the vessels’ arrival from the NAVY and or NIMASA. How convenient!!

The ’adverse’ report by the auditors was all that the Committee was waiting for to move in for the kill. It suddenly called in the SFU to investigate. Couldn’t the PC (the Committee) have awaited the reply from the NAVY and NIMASA before taking further steps in the matter?. In any case, will any negative response from the NAVY and NIMASA supercede the various findings by the auditors showing importation, actual arrival of the vessels, discharge and sale?. Since when did actual arrival of a vessel in Nigeria become speculative and not real?. In any case no vessel can arrive in Nigerian territorial waters if the Navy did not authorise the arrival. We did in fact furnish the auditors with proof of these.

We must not lose sight of the essence of the probe. The probe became necessary as a result of the wide-spread allegations that many oil marketers claimed payment under the Subsidy Scheme without importing PMS at all. We must therefore keep this in mind at all times. Thus the probe as far as it concerned us should be geared towards proving this and not trying to find any and every reason under the sun to demonize us. To show the desperation in ’trying to get us at all cost’, the Committee focused on the above transactions which do not fall within the range of the transactions it was authorised to investigate. Does it make sense that the vessels ACTUALLY arrived in Nigeria, discharged PMS, sold and delivered the PMS, received sales proceeds and then the company is still found not to have imported PMS? Nothing can be more ridiculous! The decision to refer the transactions to the SFU for investigations no doubt lends credence to our earlier assertions that the Committee is merely out to witch-hunt us, destroy our business and take over the same.

(E) TRANSACTION 10

Ref: CAP/1778/CAP/PMS/07/06/11

Subsidy; #2,490,576,987.15

(F) TRANSACTION 16

Ref: CAP/1976/CAP/PMS/14/08/11

SUBSIDY: #984,440,711.38

(G) TRANSACTION 17

Ref: CAP/1996/CAP/PMS/03/09/11

SUBSIDY: #1,480,440,043.58

(H) TRANSACTION 26

Ref: CAP/2274/CAP/PMS/30/12/11

SUBSIDY: #2,110,438,332.44

The auditors found from information they obtained from governmental agencies (DPR, NAVY, NPA and NIMASA) that there is evidence from these agencies showing the vessels mentioned in respect of the transactions 10, 16 & 17 actually arrived in Nigerian territorial waters. Same is also true of transactions 17 and except that the auditors claimed that the NAVY does not have any evidence that the vessels in respect of transaction 17 and 26 arrived in Nigerian territorial waters, while NPA records do not show the arrival of the vessel in respect of Transaction 26 even though NIMASA records contains same. They however claimed that the daughter vessels’ bills of laden provided by the company did not show details of letters of credit and Form M for the respective transactions. Indeed!! These transactions were financed by Access Bank. The auditors may need to be educated that it is impossible for any vessel to arrive in Nigeria without clearance by the NAVY. Therefore if the vessel ACTUALLY arrived the NAVY must have cleared it to berth in the territorial waters of Nigeria.

The auditors also found that all the records provided by us with regard to discharge of PMS in respect of the transactions matched the documents obtained from the relevant agencies which authenticated the company’s records. They however claimed that the independent auditor did not authenticate Transaction 10. The independent auditor however authenticated Transactions 16, 17 and 26 yet the auditors refused to verify them. We can all see how the goal post kept changing. There must be an absurd reason at every point so that our transactions will not be verified and/or authenticated. What manner of auditors are these?. Of-course any act or omission by any person or government must be blamed on us.

Just as happened with the transactions in BATCH 1 of 5, the auditors claimed that from the ’bank statements provided’ by the company, they could not reconcile about 30% of the sale proceeds as they claimed that their search could not locate the sales proceeds in the ’bank statements provided’. Invariably the auditors verified 70% of the sale of the PMS from the ’bank statements provided’ by the company, BUT claimed that they could not reconcile about 30% of the sale proceeds as they claimed that their search could not locate the sales proceeds in the ’bank statements provided’. We will deal with this issue of reconciliation of sale proceeds in the concluding part of this article, in the light of earlier findings by the Committee which showed that CBN examiners verified the existence of proof of sales proceeds from our banks.

As usual the auditors also claimed that the destination for about 3% of the trucking was not provided by the company, as such they were not able to trace where the PMS was delivered. This appears to be a familiar pattern of making sure that everything can either not be verified or reconciled so that we must have a case to answer.

According to the auditors’ reasoning , notwithstanding that NIMASA, NPA and DPR confirmed the arrival of the vessels as well as the discharge of the requisite quantity of PMS, and the NAVY records has ’no data’ on the same, then it must only mean that the company imported no PMS!! As we noted earlier no vessel that is ’confirmed to have actually arrived in the territorial waters of Nigeria can berth without clearance from the NAVY. The auditors must know that Nigeria is not that porous for a vessel to arrive in the country and the NAVY will not be aware.

In any case if as claimed by the auditors the NAVY records have ’no data’ on the arrival of the vessel, MUST we be made to suffer for that failure?. Does it mean that the confirmation by NIMASA, NPA and DPR of the arrival of the vessels as well as the discharge of the requisite quantity of PMS in Nigeria amounts to nothing because NAVY records have ’no data’ on the arrival.

We also showed evidence of compliance with NPA, NAVY, PPPRA & DPR regulations, yet the same Aig-Imoukhuede of Access bank claimed that we fraudulently received payment for subsidy. One may wonder why. One does not need to be a sorcerer to appreciate why Aig-Imoukhuede acted in a manner very much reminiscent of a sheriff in the Wild West in U.S.A. who while speaking of a man who was alleged to be a horse thief, said: ’’We will give him a fair trial and after that we will hang him’’. The reason for the unnecessary prejudice and the devil-may-care attitude shown by the Aig-Imoukhuede Committee betrays an indecent primordial intent of destruction of our hard-earned reputation under the guise of trying to catch a ’subsidy thief’. How else can he break up and take us over, except by using his new found power to starve us of funds and then exercise the right of a creditor (Access Bank) to move in and take us as spoils of war.

The auditors were hardly independent. They did the bidding of their master. Thus they were ready to say and do anything. Is it not regrettable that to the auditors it did not matter that they (auditors) have confirmed everything up to sales, trucking and delivery as well as sales proceeds but could not verify the transactions. The company MUST be maligned and publicly embarrassed as a ’subsidy thief’. How sad. Having confirmed that these vessels arrived in Nigeria, the quantity was ’independently verified by the DPR’, PMS was discharged, sold, trucked and large percent of the sales proceeds reconciled, shouldn’t the PC have awaited the reply from the NAVY and NIMASA before taking further steps in the matter. Will any negative response from the NAVY and or NIMASA supercede the various findings by the auditors showing importation, discharge and sale. We can only conclude that nothing short of seeing to our company’s downfall will be acceptable to these people. We will hold our peace and God will fight for us.

It is worthy of note that the Committee claimed that the mother vessels claimed were not found in the locations claimed by the company. Without ascertaining from the Company’s supplier about the authenticity of the attestation by our suppliers to show the mother vessel MT HARUNA EXPRESS was offshore Cotonou for the ship-to-ship transfer by the daughter vessel as stated by us, the Committee discarded same. It also failed to ascertain from our suppliers’ whom we stated charters the vessels and loads the PMS Free On Board, about this matter. We also wish to state that we are not usually the charterers of the vessels and as such are never in control of mother vessels. In any case there was no government policy in place at the time which required oil marketing companies/importers to obtain the full documentation of mother vessels.

As noted above the auditors’ conclusion in many respect vindicated the company as regards the falsehood which the public has been fed that the company was among those who collected subsidy payments without importing any PMS. The vindication is so extensive that it goes as far as confirming that at least 97% of the imported PMS was also trucked to and delivered in many destinations in the country. Surely it accords with commonsense that if you imported nothing, nothing could be sold and or delivered! If PMS from a vessel which was confirmed by the various government agencies as well as the auditors, to have ACTUALLY arrived in Nigerian territorial was delivered to various locations in Nigeria, and the sales proceeds also confirmed why weren’t the transactions verified, if not for some ulterior motive?. This comment also applies to the remaining three batches.

(I) TRANSACTION 7

Ref: CAP/1542/CAP/PMS/02/02/11

SUBSIDY: #1,559,875,069.76

(J) TRANSACTION 8

Ref: CAP/1547/CAP/PMS/11/02/11

SUBSIDY: #1,635,078,675.41

(K) TRANSACTION 9

Ref: CAP/1747/CAP/PMS/07/05/11

SUBSIDY: #2,467,281,093.60

(L) TRANSACTION 11

Ref: CAP/1830/CAP/PMS/25/06/11

SUBSIDY: #2,500,589,236.80

(M) TRANSACTION 12

Ref: CAP/1878/CAP/PMS/11/07/11

SUBSIDY: #2,116,460,530.87

(N) TRANSACTION 15

Ref: CAP/1978/CAP/PMS/12/08/11

SUBSIDY: #1,129,882,062.96

(O) TRANSACTION 18

Ref: CAP/2047/CAP/PMS/15/09/11

SUBSIDY: 1,129,882,062.90

Just like the earlier batches the auditors verified that the vessels actually arrived in Nigerian territorial waters and discharged PMS. The DPR vessel entry record also showed that the vessels actually discharged PMS in Nigeria. They also found physical evidence of sales reconciliation with the soft copies of sales records provided by the company. The auditors’ comments about the trucking and verification of sales proceeds are in line with the earlier batches. We therefore adopt our earlier comments.

The PC claimed that a review of the bill of lading in respect of our petrol import on 15th August 2011, showed that the letter of attestation did not state that MT Haruna arrived offshore Cotonou at the time of transaction and that there is no record of the mother vessel or daughter vessel bill of lading. The auditors in their report however stated that, “Our checks with all relevant agencies relevant to the shipping aspect of these transactions, revealed that NIMASA, NAVY and NPA have records showing the vessels’ arrival in Nigerian territorial waters.

At this juncture, we would like to know whether the Committee is suggesting that the various governmental agencies whose records confirm the arrival of the vessels and discharge of PMS, lack credibility that they do not trust entries in the records? If this be so, then the Committee should come out openly to indict such agencies, so that we will know that the Committee is saying that their records are not accurate. Yet when it suits the same Committee it insists that it cannot verify a transaction because ’no data about the transaction could be found in their records’.

(P) TRANSACTION 13

Ref: CAP/1875/CAP/PMS/25/07/11

SUBSIDY: 2,477,183,781.96

(Q) TRANSACTION 23

Ref: CAP/2206/CAP/PMS/20/11/11

SUBSIDY: #2,086,974,929.52

The auditors verified the actual arrival discharge, sale and trucking of the PMS in Nigeria. They only made their usual observation about the inability to reconcile 30% of the sales proceeds from the statements of accounts provided by the company as well as the 3% of the destination of the PMS delivered.

As noted earlier the auditors’ conclusions in many respect vindicated the company as regards the falsehood which the public has been fed that the company was among those who collected subsidy payments without importing any PMS. The vindication is so extensive that it goes as far as confirming that at least 97% of the imported PMS was also trucked to and delivered in many destinations in the country.

(R) TRANSACTION 5

Ref: CAP/1469/CAP/PMS/11/01/11,

SUBSIDY: #1,499,174,844.75

(S) TRANSACTION 6

REF: CAP/1470/CAP/PMS/17/01/11

SUBSIDY: #1,539,370,923.75

(T) TRANSACTION 14

REF: CAP/1972/CAP/PMS/08/08/11

SUBSIDY: 1,992,830,067.19

(U) TRANSACTION 19

REF: CAP/2203/CAP/PMS/06/10/11

SUBSIDY: #2,719,865,676.18

(V) TRANSACTION 20

Ref; CAP/2196/CAP/PMS/10/10/11

SUBSIDY; #2,022,993,488.88

(W) TRANSACTION 21

Ref: CAP/2199/CAP/PMS/10/11/11

SUBSIDY: #1,000,400,708.31

(X) TRANSACTION 22

Ref: CAP/2197/CAP/PMS/17/11/11

SUBSIDY: #989,889,970.70

(Y) TRANSACTION 24

Ref: CAP/2204/CAP/PMS/25/11/11

SUBSIDY: #826,738,244.50

(Z) TRANSACTION 25

Ref: CAP/2230/CAP/PMS/31/10/11

SUBSIDY: #1,989,174,295.62

The auditors confirmed records kept by NPA and NIMASA that the vessels involved in the transactions under this batch actually arrived in Nigeria as well as discharged the PMS in Nigeria. They only raised observations about perceived discrepancies in Maritime Insurance Certificates and Form M. Based on these observations they reached conclusions without drawing the company’s attention to the same so as to elicit their reaction and or explanation neither did they write to the issuing banks or insurance company for their comments/explanations.

They also confirmed that the records which the company provided matched all documents supplied by all the relevant agencies involved in the discharge which authenticated the discharge certificate. Sales and distribution were also confirmed.

At this point it is imperative for us to state that the auditors’ report as regards sales proceeds for the 2011 transactions is of doubtful authority as it materially contradicts and/or is in conflict with the Committee’s report. The Committee in writing the petition to SFU appeared to have accepted the auditors’ conclusion even in the face of manifest inconsistency with the Committee’s report. How can a Committee saddled with so serious a responsibility not have a firm grasp of the issues involved? Why would such a Committee blow hot and cold at the same time?

At page 81 of its report the Committee stated that at the request of the Committee, the CBN sent examiners from the departments of Banking Supervision and Trade & Exchange to review the import documentation and evidence of sales proceeds for oil marketing and trading companies with authorised dealers of foreign exchange (banks) in respect of claims submitted by the companies for 2011. These examiners were at the Banks that processed the 857 (eight hundred and fifty seven) claims which were submitted to the PPPRA, to verify the claims. According to the Committee Report the examiners adopted the following methodology:

1.A schedule of the subsidy claims submitted by for oil marketing and trading companies was obtained from PPPRA containing 857 transactions.

2.The schedule was sorted by banks and the transactions were thereafter allocated to examiners by bank for verification;

3.Transactions files of all the customers were reviewed to ascertain the adequacy of documentation and compare the information contained therein with the information in the claims submitted to PPPRA;

4.The volume of petroleum products discharged in litres was confirmed from the DPR product certificate by converting the quantity in metric tonnes to litres (using the conversion rate of 1.341Litres/MT obtained from PPPRA and compared with the volume in litres used by PPPRA as the basis for subsidy payments;

5.The Naira current accounts of the for oil marketing and trading companies were reviewed to ascertain the nature of funding of transactions and to verify the receipt of sales proceeds;

6.The banks were requested to populate a sales proceeds template designed to capture inflows into accounts in respect of the transactions.

The Committee concluded at page 82 of the Report that “Seven hundred and forty five transactions were found to have inflows of Naira proceeds which appeared commensurate to the value of the imported products…..A total of 112 transactions did not have evidence of sales proceeds based on banks’ available records at the date of verification” emphasis supplied. The 112 transactions did not have evidence of sales proceeds based on banks’ available records at the date of verification, were listed therein form pages 81-85, and the name of CAPITAL OIL & GAS INDS LTD was not listed therein.

In a very worrisome and offhand manner, these auditors reached a conclusion different from that of CBN examiners who were brought in at the instance of the Committee and whose findings the Committee accepted in her Report. This is not the end of the story. The Committee which had actually made a contrary finding in its June 2012 Report, suddenly woke up from a deep sleep and accepted the auditors’ lame finding in this regard despite the detailed work and finding of the CBN examiners. The Committee conveniently forgot that these examiners from the department of Banking Supervision and Trade & Exchange of the CBN did extensive work which it accepted. Is it not clear that the Committee will do this about-turn in order to nail CAPITAL OIL & GAS INDUSTRIES LTD. It appears that its motto in this regard is ’anything as long as we nail Capital Oil & Gas.

These examiners we noted earlier reviewed the import documentation and evidence of sales proceeds in the various banks and confirmed that we have evidence of sales proceeds. Their finding was accepted by the Committee. What then happened between then and the time M/s Ernst & Young were engaged. What changed to warrant there recurring findings that 30% of our sales proceeds could not be reconciled with the statements of account we presented. What better reconciliation could Ernst & Young auditors have done that will be better than the CBN examiners who went to the banks and examined the import documentation and reconciled the accounts with regard to sales proceeds?. Your guess is as good as ours!

Does this not show that the Committee is ready to ridicule itself in order to have our company black-listed and stopped from collecting our subsidy payments so as to meet our financial obligations and remain in business?. Is this not suspicious, moreso when the Committee has adopted same in its report, when it concluded at page 86 that these 112 companies (which excluded Capital Oil & Gas Ind. Ltd.) are to provide proof of sales proceeds?. How ridiculous can things get?. The country is presently experiencing worsening fuel shortage; nobody should be allowed to disrupt the supply chain by putting his interest ahead of the nation’s interest.

We have gone through the worst period of our business since February this year when the investigation of subsidy payments began. The House of Representatives cleared us. The first PC unfortunately indicted us. We challenged the finding as being hasty. The subsequent Committees set up have not succeeded in doing a blame-free work. It is in the light of this that we request you to objectively look into this matter.

We have put our trust in God. He alone will save us from the hands of this buccaneer who is out to rape and plunder us. It is a widely held belief that Aig-Imoukhuede is positioning himself and parading the corridors of power to be appointed the next central bank governor and/or Finance Minister. A fine ambition but it is instructive to remind him that he who must kill to attain a position may have misfortune as sentinel at the door of his new position.

May we at this juncture thank friends, well wishers and customers who have kept faith with us, through their prayers, support and encouragement even as we have remained calm in the face of such a glaring campaign of calumny and blackmail, rather we have remained consistent in the service to our nation by daily dispensing over 35% of national PMS consumption from our depot.

We will keep you updated as events unfold.

Management

(published on elombah.com)

Ricky_Ross:

THIS IS A USELESS DEFENSE COMING FROM A GREEDY BASTARD. IFEANYI UBA, JIMOH IBRAHIM AND ALL THE CRIMINALS WHO POCKETED SUBSIDY MONEY SHOULD BE STONED TO DEATH.

I HAD TO QUOTE THE ENTIRE THREAD BC I AM REALLY ANGRY THAT THIS GUY STILL HAS THE GUTS TO BE TALKING TRASH.

callydon: Our company under the visionary leadership of Dr. Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah has consistently invested massively in the downstream sector of the economy. From our humble beginning as oil traders, we have grown to become one of the biggest petroleum depot owners, oil transporters and jetty operators, with a vision of building a refinery for which land has been acquired. After the commissioning of our first oil depot in 2007, we went on to develop depots 2 and 3 in 2009. Depots 1, 2 and 3 have a total of 28 loading arms capable of loading 56 millions litres (fifty trucks) every one hour and 1,120 (one thousand, one hundred and twenty) trucks in a day. The depots have an installed storage capacity of 190million litres and loading capacity of about 36million litres load-out every day. We remain the only depot operator with such loading capability in Nigeria. We are also the only company in the downstream sector with a truck park facility capable of accommodating 1,100 (one thousand, one hundred) trucks in Lagos. Our truck park takes care of over 40% of petroleum tankers that come into Lagos to lift petroleum products on a daily basis. This helps in reducing tanker traffic congestion in Lagos roads especially around the various depots in Apapa. (published on elombah.com)

We commenced our jetty development in 2008 such that today we are the only company in the downstream sector with the capability of berthing and discharging products from four vessels simultaneously. In order to construct these four jetties we dredged the water in and around our depots at a huge cost of over N4billion, excluding payments for licences, permits, rates etc. We own one of the biggest fleet of marine tugs and barges in the downstream of the Nigerian economy.

We did all these to help grow the nation’s economy as well as provide employment, without any form of financial support or incentive from any tier of government. It is worthy of note that the development of these depots and jetties contribute about 35% of daily petroleum distribution in Nigeria today. Our customers can attest to this. To make certain that petroleum products are constantly made available to Nigerians, we operate for 24 hours every day of the week, even on public holidays. We do this to ensure that we bridge the gap in petroleum products distribution nationwide and ensuring the elimination of fuel scarcity. It was therefore in appreciation of these giant strides that Prof Pat Utomi had this to say about Ifeanyi Ubah, “To come out of the big challenge to downstream oil marketing in times of severe uncertainty, which has crippled many players in the sector, in such a strong competitive position as to be a market leader, with assets, in several areas that far outstrip much older competitors, both multi-national and indigenous, is a remarkable feat. To do so before one’s 40th birthday is to bring new meaning to accomplishment”.

In supporting the efforts of the Federal Government/NNPC towards eliminating fuel scarcity we also bought a fleet of over 400 trucks, which is the biggest in the NNPC distribution network. All these we achieved at a great cost. Most of the monies for these massive expansions were borrowed from banks at huge interest rates. All our facilities were built without our participating in the Petroleum Subsidy Scheme from 2006 - 2009. Notwithstanding, the cost of these borrowing, we carried on because of our faith in Nigeria and because of our belief that in the absence of steady power supply, a steady supply of petroleum products will not only help grow our economy but will also alleviate the suffering of our people.

Our current travails started with a petition dated September 25, 2012 by the Presidential Committee on the Verification and Reconciliation of Fuel Subsidy Payments (PC) chaired by Aig-Imoukhuede, requested for assistance from the Special Fraud Unit of the Police to investigate subsidy claims by Capital Oil & Gas Industries Limited (our company). The PC claimed that it was carrying out a 100% verification of Shore Tank Certificates and Sales Proceeds for all 2011 Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) imports under the PSF Scheme. The Committee further claimed that it engaged the services of auditors from M/s Ernst & Young to conduct a field examination of oil marketing and trading companies using an approved audit framework. It then went on to list several transactions by our company which it alleged ’appear to have irregularities’. This response is intended to show that the allegations are spurious and merely intended to pull us down in order to achieve Aig-Imoukhuede’s dream of aiding his company - Access Bank - to frustrate our business activities and take over our company.

To show that the whole thing is an ’arrangee’ by the Committee, especially Aig-Imoukhuede on Tuesday October 9, 2012 our Managing Director Dr. Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah honoured an invitation by the Special Fraud Unit of the Nigerian Police Force and ended up being detained till Friday 19 October, 2012. At no time was he declared wanted nor did the police request for his presence and he failed to show up. Various media have since been awash with all forms of unfounded allegations. The smear campaign was so bad that the company was immediately labeled an ’oil thief’ as well as accused of embezzling funds the equivalent of the allocation of eleven states. How sad. We have decided to use this medium to place before the discerning public our side of the story to avoid our silence being taken as an admission of the malicious and spurious allegations intended to destroy our hard-earned reputation. To keep silent will amount to committing corporate suicide. We have chosen to speak out so that our side of the story will be heard, lest our silence be misconceived.

The Aig-Imoukhuede Panel also accused the company of collecting subsidy payments for which proof of mother-vessels were not found in locations claimed at the time of trans-shipment. The Committee made this allegation even though all the relevant documents regarding the importation of the cargoes, including mother and daughter vessels’ documents and the bill of lading were made available to the Committee. We also provided the Committee with the evidence of opening of Form “M”, duly approved by the government appointed agent-COTECNA, establishment of letters of credit by our banker, Access Bank, appointment of an Inspection agent by Access Bank to monitor all operations from loading of the product from the mother vessel to the discharge at the jetty and also the monitoring of the truck-out from the depot. It should be noted out at this point that our bank, Access Bank which performed all the functions as well as financed over 70% of our importation. Aig-Imoukhuede is also the Managing Director and major shareholder of Access Bank. He also has vast interests in many companies that have benefited from the petroleum subsidy scheme. Such companies are also among our very strong competitors.

We intend to react to the allegations against us especially in the light of the auditors’ report which the Committee is presently hinging on to refuse to verify our transactions. These issues form the substance of the petition. We want to use this medium to address them especially in the light of the spurious conclusions contained therein. For ease of reference and presentation we shall adopt the same presentation style of the auditors (M/s Ernst & Young), of putting the transactions in batches as according to them the transactions in the same batch have the same findings.

(A) Transaction 1

Ref. CAP/1433/CAP/PMS/22/11/10

Subsidy; #1,102,732, 121.26

(B) Transaction 2

Ref; CAP/1434CAP/PMS/29/11/10

Subsidy; #803,880,711.89

(C) Transaction 3

Ref: CAP/1460/CAP/PMS/17/12/10

Subsidy: #1,303,164,254.80

(D) Transaction 4

Ref: CAP/1468/CAP/PMS/24/12/10

Subsidy: #1,503,237,849. 30

Before commenting on the Committee’s finding in respect of these transactions, we must quickly point out that these transactions are outside the scope of the powers of the Committee. For the avoidance of doubt the terms of reference of the Committee as clearly set out in Volume 1, of its Report dated sometime in June, 2012 are as follows:

1.To authenticate the backlog of outstanding payments of subsidy payments to marketers in 2011.

2.Verify the legitimacy of backlog of claims already submitted by marketers for 2011.

3.Review any other pertinent issues that may arise from the exercise.

From the foregoing it is clear that the committee acted ultra vires (beyond the scope of its authority) in purportedly embarking on the authentication of subsidy payments made to us for 2010. The Committee was never authorised to verify 2010 transactions. The authentication/ investigation of the 2010 transactions cannot by any stretch of imagination be deemed to be a ’review of any other pertinent issues that may arise from the exercise’. The ultra vires acts of the Committee in embarking on the unauthorized authentication of the said transactions, we will show later in this article that this is part of a ploy by some persons in the Committee to vilify our company at all cost.

The auditors found that the DPR and NPA have records showing the ACTUAL arrival of the various vessels in Nigerian territorial waters. The auditors also found that the company discharged the PMS as well as provided all documents relating to the discharge of PMS. In other words the auditors confirmed/verified that the company discharged the PMS imported in respect of Transactions 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Batch 1of 5). The auditors also confirmed that the DPR Certificates of Quantity verified the quantity of PMS imported. The auditors were further able to reconcile the physical evidence of sales invoices with the soft copies provided by the company. In summary the auditors confirmed the actual arrival of the vessel, the discharge of the PMS and the reconciliation of the physical evidence of sale of the imported PMS.

The auditors also traced the PMS to the loading truck record based on destination and customer. The auditors claimed however that the destination for about 3% of the trucking was not provided. The auditors claimed that they were not able to reconcile about 30% of sales proceeds to the bank statements provided by the company. The auditors rounded off by claiming that they could not conclude on the shipments because 2010 data was not received from the outstanding agencies (NIMASA and NAVY). How ridiculous.

The auditors’ conclusion in many respect therefore vindicated us as regards the falsehood which the public has been fed that the company was among those who collected subsidy payments without importing any PMS. The vindication is so extensive that it goes as far as confirming that at least 97% of the imported PMS was also trucked to and delivered in many destinations in the country. Surely it accords with commonsense that if you imported nothing, nothing could be sold and or delivered!

This is where the auditors’ report suddenly took a wrong turn. Having confirmed that the PMS was variously discharged, sold, loaded and trucked, does it not amount to standing logic on its head for these auditors to claim that because they are yet to get outstanding data from the NAVY and NIMASA, they cannot verify these transactions. These are the same auditors who had earlier stated that these importations were independently verified by the documents from the DPR. The auditors finally stated that they have written to the NAVY and NIMASA to avail them with these documents. It was therefore based on these findings that the PC referred the matter to the SFU for investigation. How sad! What more do they want?. Must they go to even ridiculous lengths to embarrass us, deprive us of payments due to us and damage our business? It appears the auditors set out to do their master’s bidding from this point.

The Presidential Committee (PC) decided that these transactions were suspicious and therefore MUST be investigated based on the shoddy work by the auditors. The auditors having verified that from the ’bank statements provided’ by the company, claimed that they could not reconcile about 30% of the sale proceeds as they claimed that their search could not locate the sales proceeds in the ’bank statements provided’. Why didn’t the auditors and or the Committee invite us to provide additional documents i.e. if one is to believe that we promised to bring additional documents but never did. It never happened that way. In any case why were other companies invited and are still being invited to clarify issues and or to supply additional documents but we were not? Why did they rush to the police without giving a fair hearing? We leave this to Nigerians to judge!

How sad. How does one explain that the auditors having confirmed that these vessels arrived in Nigeria, that the quantity was ’independently verified by the DPR, PPPRA and other agencies, PMS was discharged, sold, trucked and large percent of the sales proceeds reconciled, suddenly becomes helpless when it comes to verifying the transactions. The auditors suddenly declined to verify these transactions by claiming that they MUST get a confirmation of the vessels’ arrival from the NAVY and or NIMASA. How convenient!!

The ’adverse’ report by the auditors was all that the Committee was waiting for to move in for the kill. It suddenly called in the SFU to investigate. Couldn’t the PC (the Committee) have awaited the reply from the NAVY and NIMASA before taking further steps in the matter?. In any case, will any negative response from the NAVY and NIMASA supercede the various findings by the auditors showing importation, actual arrival of the vessels, discharge and sale?. Since when did actual arrival of a vessel in Nigeria become speculative and not real?. In any case no vessel can arrive in Nigerian territorial waters if the Navy did not authorise the arrival. We did in fact furnish the auditors with proof of these.

We must not lose sight of the essence of the probe. The probe became necessary as a result of the wide-spread allegations that many oil marketers claimed payment under the Subsidy Scheme without importing PMS at all. We must therefore keep this in mind at all times. Thus the probe as far as it concerned us should be geared towards proving this and not trying to find any and every reason under the sun to demonize us. To show the desperation in ’trying to get us at all cost’, the Committee focused on the above transactions which do not fall within the range of the transactions it was authorised to investigate. Does it make sense that the vessels ACTUALLY arrived in Nigeria, discharged PMS, sold and delivered the PMS, received sales proceeds and then the company is still found not to have imported PMS? Nothing can be more ridiculous! The decision to refer the transactions to the SFU for investigations no doubt lends credence to our earlier assertions that the Committee is merely out to witch-hunt us, destroy our business and take over the same.

(E) TRANSACTION 10

Ref: CAP/1778/CAP/PMS/07/06/11

Subsidy; #2,490,576,987.15

(F) TRANSACTION 16

Ref: CAP/1976/CAP/PMS/14/08/11

SUBSIDY: #984,440,711.38

(G) TRANSACTION 17

Ref: CAP/1996/CAP/PMS/03/09/11

SUBSIDY: #1,480,440,043.58

(H) TRANSACTION 26

Ref: CAP/2274/CAP/PMS/30/12/11

SUBSIDY: #2,110,438,332.44

The auditors found from information they obtained from governmental agencies (DPR, NAVY, NPA and NIMASA) that there is evidence from these agencies showing the vessels mentioned in respect of the transactions 10, 16 & 17 actually arrived in Nigerian territorial waters. Same is also true of transactions 17 and except that the auditors claimed that the NAVY does not have any evidence that the vessels in respect of transaction 17 and 26 arrived in Nigerian territorial waters, while NPA records do not show the arrival of the vessel in respect of Transaction 26 even though NIMASA records contains same. They however claimed that the daughter vessels’ bills of laden provided by the company did not show details of letters of credit and Form M for the respective transactions. Indeed!! These transactions were financed by Access Bank. The auditors may need to be educated that it is impossible for any vessel to arrive in Nigeria without clearance by the NAVY. Therefore if the vessel ACTUALLY arrived the NAVY must have cleared it to berth in the territorial waters of Nigeria.

The auditors also found that all the records provided by us with regard to discharge of PMS in respect of the transactions matched the documents obtained from the relevant agencies which authenticated the company’s records. They however claimed that the independent auditor did not authenticate Transaction 10. The independent auditor however authenticated Transactions 16, 17 and 26 yet the auditors refused to verify them. We can all see how the goal post kept changing. There must be an absurd reason at every point so that our transactions will not be verified and/or authenticated. What manner of auditors are these?. Of-course any act or omission by any person or government must be blamed on us.

Just as happened with the transactions in BATCH 1 of 5, the auditors claimed that from the ’bank statements provided’ by the company, they could not reconcile about 30% of the sale proceeds as they claimed that their search could not locate the sales proceeds in the ’bank statements provided’. Invariably the auditors verified 70% of the sale of the PMS from the ’bank statements provided’ by the company, BUT claimed that they could not reconcile about 30% of the sale proceeds as they claimed that their search could not locate the sales proceeds in the ’bank statements provided’. We will deal with this issue of reconciliation of sale proceeds in the concluding part of this article, in the light of earlier findings by the Committee which showed that CBN examiners verified the existence of proof of sales proceeds from our banks.

As usual the auditors also claimed that the destination for about 3% of the trucking was not provided by the company, as such they were not able to trace where the PMS was delivered. This appears to be a familiar pattern of making sure that everything can either not be verified or reconciled so that we must have a case to answer.

According to the auditors’ reasoning , notwithstanding that NIMASA, NPA and DPR confirmed the arrival of the vessels as well as the discharge of the requisite quantity of PMS, and the NAVY records has ’no data’ on the same, then it must only mean that the company imported no PMS!! As we noted earlier no vessel that is ’confirmed to have actually arrived in the territorial waters of Nigeria can berth without clearance from the NAVY. The auditors must know that Nigeria is not that porous for a vessel to arrive in the country and the NAVY will not be aware.

In any case if as claimed by the auditors the NAVY records have ’no data’ on the arrival of the vessel, MUST we be made to suffer for that failure?. Does it mean that the confirmation by NIMASA, NPA and DPR of the arrival of the vessels as well as the discharge of the requisite quantity of PMS in Nigeria amounts to nothing because NAVY records have ’no data’ on the arrival.

We also showed evidence of compliance with NPA, NAVY, PPPRA & DPR regulations, yet the same Aig-Imoukhuede of Access bank claimed that we fraudulently received payment for subsidy. One may wonder why. One does not need to be a sorcerer to appreciate why Aig-Imoukhuede acted in a manner very much reminiscent of a sheriff in the Wild West in U.S.A. who while speaking of a man who was alleged to be a horse thief, said: ’’We will give him a fair trial and after that we will hang him’’. The reason for the unnecessary prejudice and the devil-may-care attitude shown by the Aig-Imoukhuede Committee betrays an indecent primordial intent of destruction of our hard-earned reputation under the guise of trying to catch a ’subsidy thief’. How else can he break up and take us over, except by using his new found power to starve us of funds and then exercise the right of a creditor (Access Bank) to move in and take us as spoils of war.

The auditors were hardly independent. They did the bidding of their master. Thus they were ready to say and do anything. Is it not regrettable that to the auditors it did not matter that they (auditors) have confirmed everything up to sales, trucking and delivery as well as sales proceeds but could not verify the transactions. The company MUST be maligned and publicly embarrassed as a ’subsidy thief’. How sad. Having confirmed that these vessels arrived in Nigeria, the quantity was ’independently verified by the DPR’, PMS was discharged, sold, trucked and large percent of the sales proceeds reconciled, shouldn’t the PC have awaited the reply from the NAVY and NIMASA before taking further steps in the matter. Will any negative response from the NAVY and or NIMASA supercede the various findings by the auditors showing importation, discharge and sale. We can only conclude that nothing short of seeing to our company’s downfall will be acceptable to these people. We will hold our peace and God will fight for us.

It is worthy of note that the Committee claimed that the mother vessels claimed were not found in the locations claimed by the company. Without ascertaining from the Company’s supplier about the authenticity of the attestation by our suppliers to show the mother vessel MT HARUNA EXPRESS was offshore Cotonou for the ship-to-ship transfer by the daughter vessel as stated by us, the Committee discarded same. It also failed to ascertain from our suppliers’ whom we stated charters the vessels and loads the PMS Free On Board, about this matter. We also wish to state that we are not usually the charterers of the vessels and as such are never in control of mother vessels. In any case there was no government policy in place at the time which required oil marketing companies/importers to obtain the full documentation of mother vessels.

As noted above the auditors’ conclusion in many respect vindicated the company as regards the falsehood which the public has been fed that the company was among those who collected subsidy payments without importing any PMS. The vindication is so extensive that it goes as far as confirming that at least 97% of the imported PMS was also trucked to and delivered in many destinations in the country. Surely it accords with commonsense that if you imported nothing, nothing could be sold and or delivered! If PMS from a vessel which was confirmed by the various government agencies as well as the auditors, to have ACTUALLY arrived in Nigerian territorial was delivered to various locations in Nigeria, and the sales proceeds also confirmed why weren’t the transactions verified, if not for some ulterior motive?. This comment also applies to the remaining three batches.

(I) TRANSACTION 7

Ref: CAP/1542/CAP/PMS/02/02/11

SUBSIDY: #1,559,875,069.76

(J) TRANSACTION 8

Ref: CAP/1547/CAP/PMS/11/02/11

SUBSIDY: #1,635,078,675.41

(K) TRANSACTION 9

Ref: CAP/1747/CAP/PMS/07/05/11

SUBSIDY: #2,467,281,093.60

(L) TRANSACTION 11

Ref: CAP/1830/CAP/PMS/25/06/11

SUBSIDY: #2,500,589,236.80

(M) TRANSACTION 12

Ref: CAP/1878/CAP/PMS/11/07/11

SUBSIDY: #2,116,460,530.87

(N) TRANSACTION 15

Ref: CAP/1978/CAP/PMS/12/08/11

SUBSIDY: #1,129,882,062.96

(O) TRANSACTION 18

Ref: CAP/2047/CAP/PMS/15/09/11

SUBSIDY: 1,129,882,062.90

Just like the earlier batches the auditors verified that the vessels actually arrived in Nigerian territorial waters and discharged PMS. The DPR vessel entry record also showed that the vessels actually discharged PMS in Nigeria. They also found physical evidence of sales reconciliation with the soft copies of sales records provided by the company. The auditors’ comments about the trucking and verification of sales proceeds are in line with the earlier batches. We therefore adopt our earlier comments.

The PC claimed that a review of the bill of lading in respect of our petrol import on 15th August 2011, showed that the letter of attestation did not state that MT Haruna arrived offshore Cotonou at the time of transaction and that there is no record of the mother vessel or daughter vessel bill of lading. The auditors in their report however stated that, “Our checks with all relevant agencies relevant to the shipping aspect of these transactions, revealed that NIMASA, NAVY and NPA have records showing the vessels’ arrival in Nigerian territorial waters.

At this juncture, we would like to know whether the Committee is suggesting that the various governmental agencies whose records confirm the arrival of the vessels and discharge of PMS, lack credibility that they do not trust entries in the records? If this be so, then the Committee should come out openly to indict such agencies, so that we will know that the Committee is saying that their records are not accurate. Yet when it suits the same Committee it insists that it cannot verify a transaction because ’no data about the transaction could be found in their records’.

(P) TRANSACTION 13

Ref: CAP/1875/CAP/PMS/25/07/11

SUBSIDY: 2,477,183,781.96

(Q) TRANSACTION 23

Ref: CAP/2206/CAP/PMS/20/11/11

SUBSIDY: #2,086,974,929.52

The auditors verified the actual arrival discharge, sale and trucking of the PMS in Nigeria. They only made their usual observation about the inability to reconcile 30% of the sales proceeds from the statements of accounts provided by the company as well as the 3% of the destination of the PMS delivered.

As noted earlier the auditors’ conclusions in many respect vindicated the company as regards the falsehood which the public has been fed that the company was among those who collected subsidy payments without importing any PMS. The vindication is so extensive that it goes as far as confirming that at least 97% of the imported PMS was also trucked to and delivered in many destinations in the country.

(R) TRANSACTION 5

Ref: CAP/1469/CAP/PMS/11/01/11,

SUBSIDY: #1,499,174,844.75

(S) TRANSACTION 6

REF: CAP/1470/CAP/PMS/17/01/11

SUBSIDY: #1,539,370,923.75

(T) TRANSACTION 14

REF: CAP/1972/CAP/PMS/08/08/11

SUBSIDY: 1,992,830,067.19

(U) TRANSACTION 19

REF: CAP/2203/CAP/PMS/06/10/11

SUBSIDY: #2,719,865,676.18

(V) TRANSACTION 20

Ref; CAP/2196/CAP/PMS/10/10/11

SUBSIDY; #2,022,993,488.88

(W) TRANSACTION 21

Ref: CAP/2199/CAP/PMS/10/11/11

SUBSIDY: #1,000,400,708.31

(X) TRANSACTION 22

Ref: CAP/2197/CAP/PMS/17/11/11

SUBSIDY: #989,889,970.70

(Y) TRANSACTION 24

Ref: CAP/2204/CAP/PMS/25/11/11

SUBSIDY: #826,738,244.50

(Z) TRANSACTION 25

Ref: CAP/2230/CAP/PMS/31/10/11

SUBSIDY: #1,989,174,295.62

The auditors confirmed records kept by NPA and NIMASA that the vessels involved in the transactions under this batch actually arrived in Nigeria as well as discharged the PMS in Nigeria. They only raised observations about perceived discrepancies in Maritime Insurance Certificates and Form M. Based on these observations they reached conclusions without drawing the company’s attention to the same so as to elicit their reaction and or explanation neither did they write to the issuing banks or insurance company for their comments/explanations.

They also confirmed that the records which the company provided matched all documents supplied by all the relevant agencies involved in the discharge which authenticated the discharge certificate. Sales and distribution were also confirmed.

At this point it is imperative for us to state that the auditors’ report as regards sales proceeds for the 2011 transactions is of doubtful authority as it materially contradicts and/or is in conflict with the Committee’s report. The Committee in writing the petition to SFU appeared to have accepted the auditors’ conclusion even in the face of manifest inconsistency with the Committee’s report. How can a Committee saddled with so serious a responsibility not have a firm grasp of the issues involved? Why would such a Committee blow hot and cold at the same time?

At page 81 of its report the Committee stated that at the request of the Committee, the CBN sent examiners from the departments of Banking Supervision and Trade & Exchange to review the import documentation and evidence of sales proceeds for oil marketing and trading companies with authorised dealers of foreign exchange (banks) in respect of claims submitted by the companies for 2011. These examiners were at the Banks that processed the 857 (eight hundred and fifty seven) claims which were submitted to the PPPRA, to verify the claims. According to the Committee Report the examiners adopted the following methodology:

1.A schedule of the subsidy claims submitted by for oil marketing and trading companies was obtained from PPPRA containing 857 transactions.

2.The schedule was sorted by banks and the transactions were thereafter allocated to examiners by bank for verification;

3.Transactions files of all the customers were reviewed to ascertain the adequacy of documentation and compare the information contained therein with the information in the claims submitted to PPPRA;

4.The volume of petroleum products discharged in litres was confirmed from the DPR product certificate by converting the quantity in metric tonnes to litres (using the conversion rate of 1.341Litres/MT obtained from PPPRA and compared with the volume in litres used by PPPRA as the basis for subsidy payments;

5.The Naira current accounts of the for oil marketing and trading companies were reviewed to ascertain the nature of funding of transactions and to verify the receipt of sales proceeds;

6.The banks were requested to populate a sales proceeds template designed to capture inflows into accounts in respect of the transactions.

The Committee concluded at page 82 of the Report that “Seven hundred and forty five transactions were found to have inflows of Naira proceeds which appeared commensurate to the value of the imported products…..A total of 112 transactions did not have evidence of sales proceeds based on banks’ available records at the date of verification” emphasis supplied. The 112 transactions did not have evidence of sales proceeds based on banks’ available records at the date of verification, were listed therein form pages 81-85, and the name of CAPITAL OIL & GAS INDS LTD was not listed therein.

In a very worrisome and offhand manner, these auditors reached a conclusion different from that of CBN examiners who were brought in at the instance of the Committee and whose findings the Committee accepted in her Report. This is not the end of the story. The Committee which had actually made a contrary finding in its June 2012 Report, suddenly woke up from a deep sleep and accepted the auditors’ lame finding in this regard despite the detailed work and finding of the CBN examiners. The Committee conveniently forgot that these examiners from the department of Banking Supervision and Trade & Exchange of the CBN did extensive work which it accepted. Is it not clear that the Committee will do this about-turn in order to nail CAPITAL OIL & GAS INDUSTRIES LTD. It appears that its motto in this regard is ’anything as long as we nail Capital Oil & Gas.

These examiners we noted earlier reviewed the import documentation and evidence of sales proceeds in the various banks and confirmed that we have evidence of sales proceeds. Their finding was accepted by the Committee. What then happened between then and the time M/s Ernst & Young were engaged. What changed to warrant there recurring findings that 30% of our sales proceeds could not be reconciled with the statements of account we presented. What better reconciliation could Ernst & Young auditors have done that will be better than the CBN examiners who went to the banks and examined the import documentation and reconciled the accounts with regard to sales proceeds?. Your guess is as good as ours!

Does this not show that the Committee is ready to ridicule itself in order to have our company black-listed and stopped from collecting our subsidy payments so as to meet our financial obligations and remain in business?. Is this not suspicious, moreso when the Committee has adopted same in its report, when it concluded at page 86 that these 112 companies (which excluded Capital Oil & Gas Ind. Ltd.) are to provide proof of sales proceeds?. How ridiculous can things get?. The country is presently experiencing worsening fuel shortage; nobody should be allowed to disrupt the supply chain by putting his interest ahead of the nation’s interest.

We have gone through the worst period of our business since February this year when the investigation of subsidy payments began. The House of Representatives cleared us. The first PC unfortunately indicted us. We challenged the finding as being hasty. The subsequent Committees set up have not succeeded in doing a blame-free work. It is in the light of this that we request you to objectively look into this matter.

We have put our trust in God. He alone will save us from the hands of this buccaneer who is out to rape and plunder us. It is a widely held belief that Aig-Imoukhuede is positioning himself and parading the corridors of power to be appointed the next central bank governor and/or Finance Minister. A fine ambition but it is instructive to remind him that he who must kill to attain a position may have misfortune as sentinel at the door of his new position.

May we at this juncture thank friends, well wishers and customers who have kept faith with us, through their prayers, support and encouragement even as we have remained calm in the face of such a glaring campaign of calumny and blackmail, rather we have remained consistent in the service to our nation by daily dispensing over 35% of national PMS consumption from our depot.

We will keep you updated as events unfold.

Management

(published on elombah.com)

Sam Milla:

You are ignorantly silly. Not because of your post but because of the reason you gave for quoting the whole article.