Saturday, October 17, 2026
HomeNewsPipeline Surveillance contract: Group asks court to suspend PINL, Probe MD, nullify...

Pipeline Surveillance contract: Group asks court to suspend PINL, Probe MD, nullify Reps’ vote of confidence

By Aaran Ossai

A Civil Society Organization (CSO) under the aegis of Registered Trustees of Empowerment and Welfare Development Initiative for Unemployed Youths (RTEWDIUY) has asked an Abuja High Court to suspend the pipeline surveillance contract awarded to Pipeline Infrastructure Nigeria Limited (PINL), probe the Managing Director, Mr Osahon Okunbor as well as setting aside the vote of confidence passed on them by the House of Representatives.

A member of the CSO and legal practitioner, Barr, Jonas Idowu said this in a statement to journalists on Saturday in Abuja.

Idowu revealed that that the CSO in line with the spirit of transparency and accountability has gone to court to institute an uncompromising investigation into the operations of the PINL as well as probing the activities of the Managing Director in terms of oil business between him and NNPCL.

“A suit seeking the suspension of the pipeline surveillance contract awarded to Pipeline Infrastructure Nigeria Limited (PINL), an investigation into the company’s Managing Director, Osahon Okunbor, probe of terms of all oil business between them and Nnpcl and the nullification of a purported vote of confidence passed by the House of Representatives in favour of the company and its MD have been filled before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja,” he said.

The legal practitioner explained that the suit, filed his CSO has PINL, Okunbor, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC), the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and the House of Representatives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as defendants.

“In a Motion Ex Parte filed pursuant to Order 42 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2025, Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court, the claimant is seeking interim/exparte orders to suspend the pipeline surveillance contract pending the hearing and determination of a Motion on Notice.”

He also said that the claimant is also asking the court to direct the relevant authorities EFCC, ICPC, POLICE etc to commence an investigation into the operations, management, financial status and expenditure of PINL and its Managing Director in connection with the pipeline surveillance contract, money laundering etc

According to the court processes, the application raises allegations of gross financial mismanagement, ineffectiveness, personal aggrandisement, diversion and misappropriation of funds, living above legitimate means, and economic sabotage in relation to the contract.

He however said that These allegations are yet to be established by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Idowu said that the claimant is further seeking an interim injunction for PINL contract suspension and also seeking a restraining order for the relevant authorities Presidency, Nnpcl, etc from renewing or re-awarding the pipeline surveillance contract to PINL or any of its nominee companies pending the determination of the substantive application.

He reiterated their prayers seeking is an interim order setting aside the purported vote of confidence or resolution passed by the House of Representatives Hostcom Committee in favour of PINL and its Managing Director.

Idowu therefore argued that the resolution is unconstitutional, ultra vires the powers of the House, and of no legal effect plus the fact that the hearing was not transparently done.

According to him, the application asks the court to grant such further or other orders as it may deem fit in the circumstances.

The legal Practitioner expressed optimism that the court is expected to consider the reliefs sought in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures.

Idowu explained that the filing of the application does not, in itself, establish the allegations against the defendants, and the substantive issues remain subject to judicial determination.

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments