By KUNLE KALEJAYE

The Management of Capital Oil and Gas Industries Limited has refuted allegations levelled against it by the Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede-led 15-man Presidential Committee to revalidate the report of an earlier investigation panel set up by the Ministry of Finance on fuel subsidy payments valued at over N2 trillion.

In a communiqué issued by the company’s Media Relation Officer, Mr. Ike Chukwu, made available to newsmen in Lagos, Capital Oil refuted claims by the committee that it collected subsidy payments for products for which no proof of mother-vessels were found in locations claimed at the time of trans-shipments.

The company also faulted media reports that its Managing Director and Chief Executive, Mr. Ifeanyi Ubah, was declared wanted by the Special Fraud Unit (SFU) of the Nigeria Police, insisting that at no time was Ubah declared wanted nor has the Police ever invited him and he failed to show up.

The company said it decided to break its silence after series of reports that labelled it as an “oil thief”, even when no judicial pronouncement had been made against it, as keeping silent on the reports and allegations might be mistaken for admission of guilt.

Chukwu maintained that Capital oil’s current travails started after a petition dated September 25, 2012, when the presidential committee requested the assistance of the SFU to investigate subsidy claims by Capital Oil and Gas Industries.

The committee, he said, claimed that it was carrying out a 100 per cent verification of shore tank certificates and sales proceeds for all 2011 premium motor spirit (PMS) imports under the Petroleum Support Fund (PSF) scheme.

He said the committee also claimed that it had engaged the services of auditors, Ernst & Young, to conduct a field examination of oil marketing and trading companies using an approved audit framework, adding that based on the invitation, and coupled with the committee’s alleged irregularities in “several of the company’s transactions, “our MD, Ubah, on October 9, honoured the invitation by the SFU, but ended up being detained till October 19”.

In his first public comment since the invitation by the SFU, he said the committee was wrong to have accused the firm of collecting subsidy payments for which proof of mother vessels were not found in the location claimed at the time of trans-shipment, even as all the relevant documents regarding the importation of the cargoes, including mother and daughter vessels documentation and the bills of lading were made available to the committee.

He said: “We also provided the committee with the evidence of opening Forms “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 monitoring of the truck-out from the depot.

“It should be noted at this point that our bank, Access Bank, performed all the functions as well as financed over 70 per cent of our importation. Aig-Imoukhuede is also the managing director and major shareholder of Access Bank.

“He, (Aig-Imoukhuede) also has vast interests in many companies that have benefited from the petroleum subsidy scheme. Such companies are also among our very strong competitors,” he further alleged.

The oil-marketing company stated that the auditor’s report in many respects vindicated it from the false claims as alleged by the committee. “We were vindicated to the extent that the auditors confirmed that at least 97 per cent of the imported PMS was also trucked to and delivered at many destinations in the country,” he said.

“The auditors also found from the information they obtained from government agencies (DPR, the Navy, NPA and NIMASA) that there was evidence from these agencies showing that the vessels mentioned in respect of the transactions 1 to 26 vessels arrived Nigeria and discharged products.”

However, the company noted that the only contention was that the auditors claimed that they were yet to get outstanding data from the Navy and NIMASA and could not verify these transactions.