Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos says he has seen a document from the Attorney-General of the Federation which clearly stated that the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, NMDPRA, cannot exercise regulatory or oversight functions over firms operating within a free trade zone, in this case, Dangote Refinery.

Justice Aluko disclosed this on Monday while granting an interim order restraining the NMDPRA from shutting down Dangote Petroleum Refinery under the guise of performing oversight functions.

The judge granted a motion ex parte in a suit marked FHC/L/CS/1174/26, filed and moved by lawyers to Dangote Petroleum Refinery, led by Olawale Akoni, SAN.

Report says that the 700,000-barrel-per-day refinery, through its lawyers, had asked the court for “an order restraining the defendant, whether by itself, officers, servants, agents, partners, representatives, privies, or any person acting under its authority or direction, from enforcing, implementing, giving full effect to, or taking any steps or further steps pursuant to the directive contained in its letter dated August 24, 2026, by which it purported to suspend all loading and truck-out of products from the plaintiff’s refinery pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice, which has been filed contemporaneously with the present application.”

The firm also prayed for an order of interim injunction “restraining the defendant and all of its servants, privies, or agents from entering upon, sealing, shutting down, restricting access to, obstructing, suspending, disrupting, inspecting, supervising, sanctioning, or otherwise interfering with the 1st applicant’s refinery, petrochemical, terminal, storage, blending, loading, truck-out, and related facilities and operations situated in the Lekki Free Zone, in purported exercise of the directive contained in the defendant’s letter dated August 24, 2026, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice that has been filed contemporaneously with the present application”.

Justice Aluko, after considering the application, counsel’s submissions and all the processes filed, said:

“I have carefully read the application, which is predicated on a 42-paragraph affidavit, together with Exhibits A1 to A6 attached thereto. I have also considered the submissions of counsel in support of the application, including the defendant’s letter dated August 24, 2026.

“I have also seen the letter issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation, dated March 2, 2026, which clearly stated that the defendant is not entitled to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within the free zones. I have equally considered the defendant’s letter dated August 24, 2026, by which it purported to exercise such powers.

“The important question, therefore, is whether the defendant can or should be allowed to exercise such regulatory authority pending the determination of the substantive issues before the court.

“Every court has the inherent power and duty to preserve the res and prevent a situation where the subject matter of litigation would be destroyed or altered before the substantive application is determined.

“The law is settled on the conditions which an applicant must satisfy to be entitled to an order of interim injunction. Those conditions have been considered and stated in this ruling, and I find that they have been satisfied in the present case.

“The plaintiff has also undertaken to indemnify the defendant in damages should it subsequently be found that this order ought not to have been granted.

“Accordingly, I find merit in the application, and the same is hereby granted in terms of the reliefs sought. The plaintiff shall file a formal undertaking as to damages. This order, together with the notice of the court, shall be served on the defendant.”

Justice Aluko thereafter adjourned the matter to September 9, 2026, for the hearing of the motion on notice.