Vice President of IMANI Africa, Bright Simons, has responded to former Energy Minister Dr. Matthew Opoku Prempeh’s denial of involvement in the controversial unitization directive between Springfield Exploration and Production Limited and Eni Ghana Exploration and Production Limited (ENI).
In response to a statement released by Dr. Prempeh (also known as NAPO) and his demand for an apology, Simons clarified that while the initial directives were issued in 2020 under Dr. Prempeh’s predecessor, the former Minister played a significant role in escalating the dispute in 2021, leading to international arbitration.
In a statement released on February 27, 2024, Simons acknowledged that the initial unitization directives were issued in April, October, and November 2020 by Dr. Prempeh’s predecessor.
However, when Dr. Prempeh assumed office as Energy Minister in March 2021, Bright Simons claimed that he spearheaded a new process that culminated in a Heads of Decision (HoD) document.
“It is true that ‘directives’ were issued by his immediate predecessor in April, October, and November of 2020 in an escalatory fashion to compel unitization of the Eni-Vitol and Springfield blocks, and that these actions formed the genesis of the dispute.
“As the Arbitral Tribunal noted, following these preliminary directives in 2020, a decision was made by the political authorities at the highest level in 2021, when Mr. Prempeh came into office, to suspend these preliminary directives.
“A whole new process was thus begun, one that he spearheaded. This new process culminated in a Heads of Decision seeking to impose final terms on the disputing parties—ENI/Vitol and Springfield,” Simons wrote.
Simons also cited extracts from the arbitral tribunal’s findings, which highlighted Dr. Prempeh’s “personal hostility and bias” against ENI/Vitol.
The tribunal noted that Dr. Prempeh threatened to enforce unitization regardless of judicial proceedings and even suggested replacing ENI as the operator of the Sankofa field.
“The Minister may want to absolve himself and his conduct entirely of all blame, but the records of proceedings are exceedingly clear that he was the principal factor in the decision by the two international companies to take the matter outside the Ghanaian jurisdiction at the time they did in 2021,” Simons added.
According to Simons, the former Minister’s insistence on enforcing the HoD destroyed any prospects of negotiation.
“It is the complaining former Energy Minister’s insistence that Eni and Vitol comply with the terms of his one-sided HoD that destroyed every prospect of negotiation,” he added.
Simons concluded that while Dr. Prempeh may not refer to his actions as “directives,” his role in the dispute is well-documented.
Read his full statement below:
My response to Mr. Matthew Prempeh, former Minister of Energy
I have seen a statement from the former Energy Minister effectively washing his hands off the whole embarrassing spectacle that the forced unitisation saga has become following the current government’s decision to abort the policy.
I think that the former Minister is, unfortunately, harbouring some misapprehensions about the timeline of events leading to the arbitration. Furthermore, he has settled on his own definition of what a “directive” means, which limits his ability to reckon with his full role in this sad episode.
It is true that “directives” were issued by his immediate predecessor in April, October, and November of 2020 in escalatory fashion to compel unitisation of the Eni-Vitol and Springfield blocks and that these actions formed the genesis of the dispute.
However, I shall refer to these as preliminary directives for reasons that I will explain forthwith.
As the Arbitral Tribunal noted, following these preliminary directives in 2020, a decision was made by the political authorities at the highest level in 2021 when Mr. Prempeh came into office to suspend these preliminary directives.
A whole new process was thus began, one that he spearheaded. This new process culminated in a Heads of Decision seeking to impose final terms on the disputing parties – ENI/Vitol and Springfield. To all practical intents and purposes, this new document has to be regarded as a new directive at the time it was issued. It was a directive in the same line of dictates marked by a failure to accommodate the concerns and interests of the two private companies.
It is this substantive directive that triggered the decision by Eni and Vitol to finally resort to arbitration.
The Minister may want to absolve himself and his conduct entirely of all blame but the records of proceedings are exceedingly clear that he was the principal factor in the decision by the two international companies to take the matter outside the Ghanaian jurisdiction at the time they did in 2021.
Below are extracts from the tribunal’s findings that establish both the timeline and his involvement.
1. “At various meetings that took place between February and October 2021, the Minister of Energy displayed his personal hostility and bias against the Claimants by making repeated accusations and threats, including that the MoE would enforce unitisation irrespective of the judicial review proceedings, and that it would replace Eni as the operator of the Sankofa field.”
2. “At the 21 July 2021 meeting between the Claimants [Eni-Vitol], the President, and the MoE [Ministry or Energy], the parties decided to enter into HoD [Heads of Decision] agreeing (i) to the suspension of the Unitisation Directives; (ii) to the suspension of the Judicial Review Proceedings and Springfield’s litigation against the Claimants; and that (iii), provided conditions (i) and (ii) were met, the Claimants would negotiate a PUA with Springfield on the basis of the Claimants’ Technical Report.”
3. “On 3 August 2021, the Claimants (Eni-Vitol) sent a letter to the MoE contending that the HoD [ sent by the Energy Ministry ] did not reflect the discussions at the 21 July meeting. They reiterated their position that the agreement had been to suspend the October and November Directives, as well as the ongoing judicial proceedings.”
It is the complaining former Energy Minister’s insistence that Eni and Vitol comply with the terms of his one-sided HoD, which destroyed every prospect of negotiation. If he chooses not to call his instructions to them to submit to his will “directives”, he is free to do so and choose his preferred language.
This entitlement, however, does not negate his contribution to the animosity that landed Ghana in international arbitration, with embarrassing results.
Next time, I will be more diligent in adding footnotes to any term I use for the conduct of the former Minister so as not to offend his definitional sensibilities.
Bright Simons
ID/MA
Watch the latest edition of BizTech below:
Click here to follow the GhanaWeb Business WhatsApp channel