….Bussed Ghanaian delegation left embarrassed at ENI’s international arbitration
Ghana’s involvement in a major arbitration case against Eni, has stirred controversy due to the massive contingent it has sent to France for the proceedings which has billed three witnesses, including the Deputy Energy Minister, Andrew Kofi Egyapa Mercer, Michael Ayittey of Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) and Prof. Abotsi.
The Herald’s information is that Egyapa Mercer, fumbled in the courtroom many times to the embarrassment of the huge Ghanaian delegation led by the Energy Minister, Dr Mathew Opoku Prempeh, the GNPC Chief Executive, Opoku-Ahweneeh and many others from the GNPC, Energy Ministry and the Petroleum Commission.
While, many of the individuals in the delegation, have no direct responsibility in the litigation, they have nonetheless travelled at the expense of the state, occupying expensive hotels for an extended period, while attending court sessions. The arbitration court, has been intensely interrogating witnesses from Ghana, a development that has raised concerns among the paid observers who are closely following the case.
Paradoxically, the government has appealed for clemency should the verdict favour Eni, raising questions about the rationale behind expending public funds on court proceedings only to later plead for mercy.
This juxtaposition leaves many baffled as to why an excessive number of individuals, without clear assignments in the litigation, have been brought to the court at a significant cost to the state.
The Herald, has closely tracked the government’s handling of the unitization with Springfield Oil directive since 2020, and consistently issued warnings for the government to approach the issues in a more prudent manner, to foster investor confidence. Ghana’s approach in the dispute has drawn criticism from the international community, which perceives the country’s stance as biased in its judgments on unitisation. This perceived bias stems from a lack of thorough technical analysis that would ensure sound decisions are reached.
GNPC, has offered technical support to the government’s position, but this assistance has faced skepticism from numerous industry experts, who question its credibility.
Despite this, the President, Nana Akufo-Addo, appears to be disregarding expert advice that could potentially guide more informed decisions.
The situation, has been exacerbated by the speculated instances where the President labelled Eni as “pro NDC” (National Democratic Congress) and demonstrated a determination to penalize the company on those grounds. Consequently, the engagements have not entertained technical solutions, side-lining a potentially pragmatic approach to the issue.
The Energy Minister, Dr Mathew Opoku Prempeh’s tumultuous presence within the industry, has been nothing short of a nightmare, leaving a trail of disruption and unease.
His behaviour, marked by frequent tantrums and heated outbursts directed at Eni, has cast a shadow over the pursuit of a just and balanced resolution for the sector. His actions have contributed to undermining the objective process of arriving at an appropriate solution, marring the integrity of the Ministry to deal fairly with all players.
The Minister’s propensity for uncontrolled anger and bully tactics is not confined to hearsay; court documents explicitly cite his conduct as evidence of his disruptive behaviour.
This turbulent demeanour, has not only impeded constructive dialogue, but has also raised concerns about the fairness of determining the industry’s fate under such conditions.
As a key figure within the energy sector, his behaviour raises broader questions about the impact of personal conduct on the professionalism and credibility of high-stakes legal and regulatory proceedings.
The influence of ministerial directives, has extended even to the Ghanaian courts, where judgments now hang in precarious equilibrium, contingent upon the outcome of the international arbitration.
The unfolding scenario, reveals a complex interplay between national legal decisions and the impending global ruling. Should Ghana’s case not prevail in the international arbitration, a significant implication arises—court rulings rendered within the country could potentially come under scrutiny.
These judgments, previously guided by the ministerial directives, could inadvertently cast light on any failures to rigorously assess the core issues in the ongoing unitisation dispute.
This impending situation underscores the pivotal role of the international arbitration’s outcome, as it holds the potential to either affirm the coherence of prior court decisions or expose any discrepancies that may exist due to external influence. The interconnectedness of these legal processes accentuates the high stakes involved in ensuring transparency, impartiality, and a comprehensive understanding of the intricate matters at hand.
With the court’s judgment expected in September of this year, the government’s response is notable for its tone of apprehensive relief rather than optimism. Paradoxically, the government has appealed for clemency should the verdict favour Eni, raising questions about the rationale behind expending public funds on court proceedings only to later plead for mercy. This juxtaposition leaves many baffled as to why an excessive number of individuals, without clear assignments in the litigation, have been brought to the court at a significant cost to the state.
In January this year, the Chief Executive Officer of the Petroleum Commission, Egbert Faibille Jnr. stated that the unitization of Springfield and ENI Sankofa fields which was started under John Peter Amewu, then the Energy Minister, has been declared.
According to him, the Minister of Energy declared the unitization under the Petroleum Exploration and Production Act 2016.
Speaking at a public lecture on Energy Transition at the University of Ghana’s 75th anniversary, he stated that “the Afina discovery which has been made by Springfield, an indigenous Ghanaian company has been declared unitized by the Minister of Energy with ENI- Sankofa Gye Nyame field, pursuant to Section 34, sub -section 1 of the Petroleum Exploration and Production Act 2016”.
The Springfield and Sankofa Gye Nyame’s unitization, has been a legal tussle since 2021. Industry players had urged Ghana to resolve the case to ensure the successful unitization of the fields to derive maximum benefits from the oil and gas sector
The Institute for Energy Security (IES), stated that “the country is likely to miss a huge opportunity to rake in billions of Dollars from the upstream petroleum sector” if the deal is prolonged
The IES’ projection was due to the delay on the part of Eni Ghana Exploration and Production Limited (ENI) and Springfield E&P (Springfield) to cooperate, to unitise the Afina and Sankofa fields.
He also commended Springfield for being the first Ghanaian indigenous exploration company to make a discovery in oil and gas.
” This story proves that Ghanaians can make it”, he added.
