Stolen crude: Lawmaker threatens legal action against whistleblowers

The Mark Gbillah‑led Ad Hoc Committee of the House of Representatives, which is probing the theft of 48 million barrels of crude oil, has threatened legal action against members of the George Uboh‑led Whistleblowers Network for making spurious allegations against the committee.

In the early hours of Tuesday in Abuja, the Whistleblowers Network stormed the main entrance of the National Assembly to protest the Ad Hoc Committee’s investigation into the alleged stolen crude, which was reportedly sold to China for proceeds of $4.8 billion. Protesters, led by Peter Umoh, denounced the committee’s formation, arguing that the crime was already being litigated in court. They claimed the House had received no petition from them to justify such an investigation and that the committee had excluded them from the list of witnesses invited to a public hearing. To the protesters, this omission suggested a vested interest by the House and the committee. They believed the Ad Hoc Committee should relinquish the matter, since competent courts were already hearing related cases.

Chairman Mark Gbillah responded by dismissing the Whistleblowers Network as “rabble‑rousers” and labeling their allegations as spurious. He warned that legal action would be taken against their sponsors if they did not cease their “show of shame.” Gbillah clarified that the information about the stolen 48 million barrels did not come from the Whistleblowers Network but from a 2020 publication by Jackson Odey in the United States. He noted that the committee’s mandate, established by a House resolution three months before the whistleblowers went to court, was not sub judice. Moreover, the committee’s scope extended beyond the 48 million barrels to cover all crude oil exports from 2014 to the present and to investigate the whistleblowers’ findings in the oil sector.

Gbillah further asserted that the Whistleblowers Network’s claim of not having submitted a petition was irrelevant, as the House did not require such a petition to commence its investigation. He accused the network of hiding behind anonymity after previously meeting the committee behind closed doors and requesting compensation that was not granted. “The earlier they realize that their rabble‑rousing cannot stop the committee from fulfilling its mandate, the better for them,” he concluded.