The appearance of two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) each claiming to have the authority to represent General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL), yesterday, stalled proceedings in the suit filed by the company against the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) and others.

The matter is before Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court, Lagos.

The confusion arose when the two lawyers — Dr. Abiodun Layonu (SAN) and Mr. Oluseye Opasanya (SAN) each announced appearance for the claimant.

Layonu informed the court that he was representing GHL.

Opasanya, who AMCON appointed as the Receiver/Manager over the company, also clamed to be the lawful legal representative of the claimant, given the company’s status in receivership prior to the commencement of the action which was not disclosed to the court.

The dual appearances triggered a prolonged legal argument over who was the proper counsel authorised to speak for the company.

Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa repeatedly sought clarification, asking both senior lawyers to identify the authentic representative of the claimant in view of the pending receivership.

With no resolution in sight, the court directed both counsel to file formal written addresses on the issue of representation. The matter was adjourned till December 3.

The disagreement over legal representation also frustrated the contempt proceedings initiated by GHL against AMCON.

The contempt application was predicated on earlier interim orders in which Justice Lewis-Allagoa had restrained AMCON and its agents from taking any recovery steps against the company, interfering with its assets, or appointing a receiver pending the hearing of a motion.

The underlying suit concerns Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) 120 and 121, which were granted within a structured commercial and regulatory framework aimed at assisting First Bank of Nigeria to recover a substantial non-performing loan issued to Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept Limited.

To safeguard the repayment of the loan, described as Outstanding Exposure, the former Department of Petroleum Resources (now NUPRC) considered permitting a qualified operator to run the assets and apply production revenues towards the debt.

It was in this context that GHL proposed to operate the two assets.

The Tripartite Agreement signed by GHL, First Bank, and AMCON expressly stated that one of GHL’s key considerations was resolving the Outstanding Exposure, while advancing Nigeria’s economic interests. GHL undertook financial commitments and received support from First Bank and later AMCON.

Under this framework, GHL became responsible for operating OMLs 120 and 121 and for applying production proceeds toward repayment of the exposure.

But AMCON and First Bank later alleged serious operational and financial misconduct by GHL’s former management, including revenue diversion, chronic non-payment of contractors, operational breakdowns, and the imminent risk of demobilisation of the FPSO operator—conditions that threatened the assets with shutdown and possible licence revocation.

Acting under sections 34 and 48 of its Act, AMCON appointed a Receiver over GHL on September 18. The appointment, by law, suspended the powers of GHL’s former directors from that date.

Despite this, the former directors initiated the present suit in the name of the company, allegedly without lawful authority, in what AMCON describes as an attempt to obstruct the receivership.

Since the Receiver assumed control, steps have been taken to stabilise operations and safeguard the assets. However, instead of recognising the receivership, the former directors have been accused of attempting to weaponize interim court orders obtained after the Receiver’s appointment, framing a restructuring measure as contempt aimed at undermining the Receiver and his counsel. (The Nation, but headline rejigged)