Recall that Achimugu has been on the run after being declared wanted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC , over alleged money laundering and a high-profile investment scam.
However, the $5million oil block allegation strikes at the heart of Nigeria’s most critical industry, where oil remains the government’s largest revenue source. Regulatory corruption not only enriches a few but robs the nation of billions needed for infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
Multiple sources familiar with the matter allege that Komolafe facilitated the deal under the guise of “strategic partnership encouragement,” a term reportedly used to cover up questionable financial dealings.
Achimugu, a controversial businesswoman with growing interests in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector, allegedly secured preferential access to a lucrative oil block shortly after the transfer of funds.
According to insiders, the transaction was meticulously organized through intermediaries to avoid direct links between the parties. Despite these precautions, concerns over the integrity of the process have intensified within the oil sector and political circles.
A senior NUPRC official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Achimugu’s case is just one of several instances where oil block awards have allegedly been monetized. “This was not a one-off. Komolafe has turned oil block awards into a cash-and-carry affair,” the official said.
Amid ongoing reshuffles within Nigeria’s oil ministry, Komolafe has reportedly boasted about his immunity from removal, attributing his security to financial contributions allegedly made to the Presidential Villa.
“They can’t remove me,” Komolafe was quoted as saying. “I deliver money directly to the Villa.”
Insiders claim that Komolafe maintains strong networks within the Presidency, allegedly fortified through regular monetary deliveries, which serve as an informal shield against probes and disciplinary actions.
Industry players noted a pattern where access to lucrative oil assets appeared linked to political or financial connections rather than merit. An executive at a Nigerian oil firm that lost out on a major bid described the process as “calculated to benefit those who pay.”
Achimugu, in her alleged dealings with Komolafe, her ambitions reportedly aligned with a regulatory environment willing to trade access for payment.
The implications of such arrangements extend beyond individual transactions. Analysts warn that corruption at regulatory levels undermines the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021, which aimed to establish transparency and fairness in the oil sector.
“When regulators become merchants, the system collapses,” a policy analyst specializing in extractive industries said. “Komolafe’s actions, if proven, erode the very foundations the PIA was meant to reinforce.”
Further allegations suggest that Komolafe’s dealings extend beyond the Achimugu case. Several politically connected companies have reportedly benefited from favorable decisions after financial settlements. In one instance, an oil block previously awarded to a consortium of indigenous firms was allegedly reassigned to a company linked to a former governor following clandestine negotiations.
Sources familiar with Komolafe’s operations describe a pattern where trusted intermediaries manage discussions and payments, keeping the regulator a step removed but clearly benefiting from the outcomes.
The broader consequence of such practices is a decline in investor confidence. Reputable investors, wary of an opaque system, are increasingly hesitant to commit resources to Nigeria’s oil sector. Additionally, the economy loses billions of dollars annually due to delayed projects, disputes, and litigation stemming from compromised regulatory actions.
Komolafe’s current troubles mirror controversies from his past. As General Manager for Operations at the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA), he was explicitly named in a Premium Times investigation into the massive fuel subsidy scam during the tenure of former Petroleum Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke.
Interestingly, it was his idea and template that enabled criminals in the oil sector to smuggle empty ships into the country while falsely claiming subsidies for products they never delivered. He consistently took a standard cut of 30 percent from these deals.
Kolawole effectively orchestrated this scheme to exploit the Nigerian government by colluding with these criminals in the oil sector.
However, when President Buhari came to power, Kolawole who was former Group General Manager in charge of Crude Oil Marketing, ran away, he was in exile for sometime before coming back to Nigeria . According to a well-detailed report in PremiumTimes, “Lagos Division of the Federal High Court ordered the permanent forfeiture of N7.6 billion to the Nigerian government, money suspected to belong to Diezani Alison-Madueke, the former Minister of Petroleum Resources.
Justice Abdulaziz Anka gave the order sequel to an application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, seeking the final and permanent forfeiture of the funds to the federal government .
The anti-graft agency in its supporting affidavit stated that an investigation based on intelligence reports it received discovered that the N7.6 billion in the accounts of some banks were actually proceeds of unlawful activities held and laundered through Gbenga Komolafe, former Group Managing Director, Crude Oil Marketing Division of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation”.
However, Komolafe narrated to a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos , how he delivered 12 padlocked bags containing $70 million to an Abuja-based banker on the instruction of former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke.
Komolafe further claimed that he delivered money to the Abuja banker, one Charles, in the front of Dume Supermarket in Abuja.
Komolafe told the court: “As I can remember, shortly before the 2015 elections, it was the norm for heads of subsidiaries (of the NNPC) to be invited for undisclosed briefing of activities of their departments to the minister.
“At the end of such briefings, the then Minister of Petroleum Resources, Alison-Madueke, gave me a GSM number in respect of one Charles, whom I had never met, with a clear instruction that I should convey 12 padlocked bags to the said Charles.
“The source, the content and the purpose of the bags were not disclosed to me. Thereafter, I called the said Charles, who equally confirmed to me that he had been briefed about the message. I delivered the bags to Charles.
“Much later, the EFCC invited me for interrogation on the issue and I made a statement to that effect. Charles equally confirmed at the EFCC that he received the 12 padlocked bags and the bags contained the sum of $70 million.”
Asked by the prosecutor to describe the kind of relationship he and others had with Diezani, the witness said: “We had a command-and-obey relationship and also took an oath of office to obey directives and authority.”
In the exposé, industry sources revealed that Komolafe, or his designated representatives, demanded $8 per metric tonne from oil marketers seeking import authorizations — essentially setting a bribery toll gate at the agency. Described as the operational gatekeeper, Komolafe controlled access to subsidy allocations, thereby entrenching a system where marketers paid bribes to conduct legitimate business.
Komolafe’s role was neither passive nor peripheral. The sources pointed to him as an active participant who either personally communicated the bribe requirements or delegated it to trusted subordinates. His position allowed him to manipulate the subsidy system from within, trading public allocations for private gain.
The mechanics of the scam illustrated Komolafe’s critical place in a corruption chain: Oil marketers would pay PPPRA officials (under Komolafe’s oversight), proceeds would be passed through bagmen like Mr. Rufai, and eventually, the funds would reach Diezani’s inner circle.
While it remains unclear whether Komolafe was acting solely under orders or independently exploiting his position, the allegations firmly established him as a central enabler of the scam. His breach of public trust at PPPRA demonstrated a pattern of monetizing official processes — a pattern that appears to have evolved rather than disappeared at the NUPRC.
Analysts argue that the damage inflicted by actions like Komolafe’s extends deep into the economy’s core. When trust is eroded at the regulatory level, the entire petroleum industry, which remains the backbone of Nigeria’s revenue, becomes vulnerable to exploitation and inefficiency. Investor interest shifts toward other African markets perceived to be better governed, further diminishing Nigeria’s competitiveness.
Moreover, compromised regulatory agencies send a discouraging signal to indigenous companies that lack political connections or the means to “settle” their way into opportunities. The message becomes clear: merit and competence matter less than backroom dealings and political patronage. In the long run, this discourages innovation, deters talent, and sustains inequality in the sector.
For a country struggling with rising poverty, high unemployment, and currency instability, continued corruption in its most vital sector exacerbates the crisis. The wealth generated by oil is siphoned off by a few, rather than used to fund infrastructure, education, healthcare, and other sectors critical to national development.
Restoring integrity to regulatory agencies like the NUPRC is not merely an administrative requirement; it is a national imperative. Without decisive action against officials like Komolafe, Nigeria risks entrenching a culture where public office is seen primarily as a means to personal enrichment. The ultimate victims are not the wealthy insiders, but the millions of Nigerians whose futures are mortgaged by the greed of a few.
The Komolafe scandal, if left unaddressed, may serve as a grim metaphor for Nigeria’s broader governance struggles. It will take more than rhetoric to correct the course; it will demand political courage, institutional reforms, and the empowerment of oversight bodies to act without fear or favor.
Civil society organizations and sections of the media are mounting pressure for a full investigation into NUPRC’s operations. Letters have reportedly been sent to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), urging immediate action.
Skepticism remains, however, regarding the likelihood of a thorough probe, given Komolafe’s alleged connections within the Presidency. Previous attempts to sanitize the oil sector have often stalled due to political interference.
Advocacy groups argue that failing to address the allegations against Komolafe would set a dangerous precedent. “No one should be above the law,” said a leading voice at the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI). “If Komolafe is truly untouchable, it places our democracy and economy at risk.”
