The Chairman of First Bank, Mr. Femi Otedola is presently facing huge criticism over his alleged usual ways to use bank loans to take over businesses of other people.
This is coming just as perceived hidden interests of a prominent lawyer, Mr. Koku whose dual roles in the Nestoil and FBNQuest case, which now threatens the integrity of the Nigeria Oil sector, have been unmasked by this newspaper.
During an exclusive investigation by Our correspondent over the alleged conflict of interest and potential
Regulatory capture of the NUPRC, in Nestoil and Neconde’s Legal
Battle with FBN Quest and First Trustees, it was gathered that in the corridors of Nigeria’s petroleum industry, a storm that could reshape perceptions of justice, transparency, and regulatory independence at the apex of the upstream sector is brewing.
Through months of document review and interviews with industry insiders,
told Our correspondent in its investigation uncovered troubling evidence that a top legal practitioner is at the heart of a clash between public interest and private gain, raising fresh questions about conflicts of interest and the spectre of regulatory capture.
Findings showed that the wrangle between Neconde Energy Limited, Nestoil Limited, and a consortium of financial institutions represented by FBN Quest Merchant Bank Limited and
First Trustees Limited, resembles a typical high-value debt dispute but, dig deeper and a more intricate web emerged.
This investigation revealed that Babajide Koku SAN, a personal lawyer to Mr. Femi Otedola, the chairman of First Bank, has simultaneously served as legal counsel for both the FBN Parties and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) in lawsuits
that could determine the fate of critical national oil assets.
This dual representation, spanning Suit No: FHC/L/CS/2127/2025 in Lagos and Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/2369/2025 in Abuja, goes far beyond a mere procedural oversight as legal documents obtained by this newspaper confirmed that Koku’s name appears on court filings for
multiple parties with directly competing interests, fuelling allegations that regulatory impartiality may be at risk.
According to legal experts who spoke with Our correspondent, the implications echo far beyond the courtroom—potentially shaking the very foundations of the sector’s governance
Meanwhile, our investigation reconstructed the timeline of this controversy, beginning on 20 October
2025, when FBN Parties, represented by Koku, SAN, sued Nestoil and Neconde over an alleged $1billion debt. But even before the gavel fell, FBN Trustees had petitioned the NUPRC on 9 September 2025, seeking consent to register a second charge over Oil Mining Lease (OML) 42, an asset in which Neconde holds a substantial stake.
It was also gathered that the NUPRC signalled its readiness
to approve the charge, prompting Neconde, wary of a hostile takeover, to launch its own legal offensive on 6 November 2025.
“When the NUPRC responded to Neconde’s lawsuit, challenging the validity of the very consent it had given, it too appeared in court represented by Koku” a document at the disposal of this newspaper stated..
Meanwhile, multiple sources confirmed to Our correspondent that Koku, SAN was present for both the FBN Parties and the regulator, a move that has left industry players and legal watchdogs questioning whether the independence of
Nigeria’s upstream regulator may have been fatally compromised.
Experts that were interviewed by Our correspondent warned that such brazen dual representation is more than a
technical breach of legal ethics, it is a flashing red light for regulatory capture, where public agencies risk being co-opted by the very entities they are meant to police.
One concerned stakeholder who spoke under the condition of anonymity described this as “akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse”, noting that the
same lawyer advancing private creditors’ interests is now shaping the regulator’s legal defence.
“The stakes are monumental: should NUPRC’s consent to FBN Trustees be upheld, it could set a perilous precedent, enabling further encroachment by powerful financiers at the expense of due process and fair regulatory oversight” he added.
Also, critics alleged that Koku’s close
affiliations with major stakeholders in the FBN entities call into question the motives behind the legal manoeuvring, stoking speculation about a well-orchestrated asset grab under the
veneer of judicial process.
Another expert told this newspaper state that lawyers must not act for conflicting interests without full, informed consent. He queried: “Assuming that all necessary disclosures have been made, is it appropriate for the NUPRC to appoint legal representatives who are currently acting on behalf of an interested party in the dispute.
“Furthermore, is it advisable for FBN Trustees to permit its retained counsel to also represent the NUPRC in litigation where FBN Trustees has a financial interest in the outcome”
Senior Nigeria legal analysts who offered to grant interviews on this issue cautioned that Koku’s actions could trigger motions for disqualification and expose both NUPRC and the FBN Parties to damaging reputational
fallout.
Meanwhile, some of the legal experts have called for an urgent review of how regulators appoint external counsel,
warning that public trust in Nigeria’s oil industry hangs in the balance.
One of them added that: “For Koku, the risks are professional as well as reputational, with the possibility of regulatory scrutiny or even sanctions if formal complaints are lodged, particularly where formal disclosures were not made and subsequent consent of the NUPRC obtained.
“For NUPRC, the crisis raises uncomfortable questions about its commitment to unbiased oversight and
whether it can withstand the corrosive influence of well-connected private interests”
Speaking on investor confidence which they said is already on the Line, legal experts noted that the fallout is already being felt beyond the courtroom.
However, Oil Industry veterans who spoke with Our correspondent noted that
uncertainty and perceptions of impropriety could scare off much-needed investment from
an already fragile upstream sector.
“Without transparency and clear ethical boundaries, you can’t have a credible investment climate,” one executive told Our correspondent, calling for sweeping reforms and tougher frameworks to safeguard regulatory processes from undue interference.
Legal experts are urging the government to overhaul consent procedures and demand full transparency in all dealings between regulators and their outside advisers.
Our correspondent gathered further that as the lawsuits wind their way through Nigeria’s federal courts, the spotlight remains fixed on Babajide Koku SAN, the NUPRC, and the banks pulling the strings behind the scenes.
It was also gathered that the case has become a litmus test for transparency, legal ethics, and the resilience of Nigeria’s regulatory institutions, and the final outcome may not only decide who controls a lucrative oil
lease but could also set a lasting benchmark for the country’s commitment to fairness and
the rule of law.
“In a sector too often shrouded in secrecy, only genuine accountability and unwavering ethical standards can restore faith in those entrusted with Nigeria’s most precious resources” another industry expert noted.
In a related development, Chairman of First Bank Holding, Mr. Femi Otedola has been accused of taking over businesses of First bank customers under the guise of debt default with the help of some corrupt judges.
According to finding, Otedola, as a result of his greed and love for other people’s business and properties would hide under the guise of giving loans to business owners to develop their businesses, inflate the loans, hide their loan documents and use the court to take over such businesses.
Apart from Nestoil/Neconde which would have been his latest victim if not for the vigilance of the legal team of Dr. Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi, the chairman of First Bank had used the FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited to fraudulently hijack several firms from their original owners.
However, officials of Neconde have lamented that for over three years, First bank has refused to release bank statements to the company.
The company alleged in several reports that First Bank has refused to provide bank statements, reconciliation documents, or loan records Nestoil which they need to use to verify whether any debt actually exists.
There are instances of Sahara Group and General Hydrocarbon which Otedola wickedly and cunningly used the loans which his bank gave to those two companies to hijack their lucrative businesses with the help of some corrupt judges.
Our correspondent’s independent investigation showed that Mr. Femi Otedola had earlier this year approached Neconde requesting to buy some 16 percent stake in the juicy Oml42 oil block.
For fears of what he has done to Sahara Group and General Hydrocarbon in the past, Otedola’s request was bluntly rejected by Neconde, and this led to First bank to drag Nestoil and Neconde in aggressive move to take over OML 42, citing an alleged $1billion dollar unverified debt.
“How can we owe what we cannot see?”
We cannot verify any debt because First Bank will not release the very documents that would confirm or disprove their claim.” one of the officials of Nestoil told this newspaper, insisting that without those statements, the bank’s attempts to enforce debt recovery actions amount to economic ambush and economic gangsterism.
Meanwhile, an expert in the Nigerian Petroleum business told Our correspondent that: “At the centre of the conflict is OML 42—one of the most promising onshore blocks in the Niger Delta Basin. Industry analysts estimate that the licence could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue over its lifespan. At present OML42 accounts for approximately 5% of Nigeria’s crude oil production.
“There are claims that the subsidiaries of First Bank Holding under the Chairmanship of Mr Femi Otedola has shown “unusual, excessive interest” in taking over the OML42 through court orders, ex parte motions, and aggressive debt-recovery procedures that the company says lack documentary justification.
“It has become clear that the bank’s objective is not repayment—it is acquisition,”
Also, a legal expert who spoke with Our correspondent during our investigation said that the refusal of First bank to release bank statements, if true, raises serious questions about transparency and the integrity of the bank’s claims, saying that a creditor refusing to provide account statements is highly irregular.
He added that any enforcement action without documentary clarity could be challenged as predatory or abusive.