Billionaire businessman Femi Otedola has instructed his legal team to prepare a ₦1 billion defamation lawsuit against Umar Sani, a former spokesperson to former Vice President Namadi Sambo, over allegations that Otedola benefited from Nigeria’s petroleum fuel subsidy regime through his company, Zenon Petroleum and Gas Ltd.

 

The move follows a series of public statements by Sani, in which he accused Otedola of profiting from fuel subsidy payments—particularly during the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan. Sani alleged that Zenon Petroleum controlled up to 90% of diesel imports at the height of the subsidy regime and also held a significant share of other petroleum product imports.

Otedola had recently made allegations that over ₦2 trillion was siphoned through questionable subsidy claims under Goodluck Jonathan’s administration. He also criticized how corruption remained entrenched in the system and pointed fingers at various actors in the downstream sector.

 

In response, Umar Sani described Otedola’s assertions as “hypocritical, selective, and a convenient rewriting of history,” accusing him of conveniently ignoring his own company’s historic involvement and benefits during the same subsidy regimes he now condemns.

Following Sani’s accusation, Otedola has reportedly instructed his attorneys to file a suit seeking ₦1 billion in damages for defamation. The aim is to protect his reputation, business interests, and the public image of Zenon Petroleum. The lawsuit is expected to be initiated in a Federal High Court in Abuja.

 

While no official court documents have yet been filed at the time of reporting, sources close to Otedola’s legal team say they are preparing exhibits, statements, and other supporting materials. These will likely include documentation of import records, financial transactions, and past public approvals tied to Zenon.

This is not the first time Otedola has been involved in public controversies over subsidy allegations. In 2012, Zenon Petroleum & Gas Ltd was among firms flagged by the House of Representatives Ad‑hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy for allegedly abusing the subsidy regime. There was also a forensic audit panel, led by banker Aigboje Aig‑Imoukhuede, tasked with investigating subsidy abuses during Jonathan’s administration.

 

Another related legal precedent is Otedola’s 2024 defamation lawsuit against Farouk Lawan (former chair of that subsidy probe committee) and Aminu Tambuwal (Speaker of the House of Representatives) seeking ₦250 billion damages over an attempt to list Zenon among indicted subsidy‑abusing companies.

So far, the public evidence cited by Umar Sani includes claims of the company’s dominance in diesel imports during the subsidy regime, the overlap of time periods during which Zenon was operational and importing under subsidized terms, and the role of Otedola in associations connected to subsidy‑era operations.

• Legal Standard: For Otedola to succeed, his team will need to demonstrate that Sani’s statements are false, that they have harmed his reputation and business, and that the comments were made negligently or maliciously.

• Public Interest and Free Speech: Because the dispute concerns allegations about public subsidy and governance, there will likely be tension between freedom of expression (Sani’s right to criticize) and protection of reputation (Otedola’s claim). The courts often weigh public interest heavily in such cases.

• Evidence & Transparency: Both sides will likely present documentary evidence—import records, contracts, audit reports, and possibly testimonies from regulatory agencies. The 2012‑forensic audit panel and past fuel subsidy probes may be central to both defense and plaintiff’s case.

• Business & Reputation Risks: For Otedola and Zenon, these allegations, if left unaddressed, risk damage to their public image and could affect regulatory approvals, investor confidence, and business partnerships. The lawsuit may be aimed at not only obtaining damages, but also at publicly clearing his name.

• Political Fallout: Since fuel subsidy is a politically charged topic, especially regarding transparency, accountability, and corruption, this legal battle may have political repercussions. Accusations of political motivations (by either side) are likely to be part of the narrative.

• Umar Sani has yet to publicly respond in detail to the reported intention of the lawsuit.

• It remains to be seen when the high court filing will occur and whether Otedola will seek interim relief, such as a retraction or public apology from Sani, in addition to damages.

• Observers expect that the case might also stimulate renewed public and media interest in full disclosure of fuel subsidy audits across multiple administrations.

As Nigeria continues to grapple with debates over fuel subsidy, corruption, and transparency in its oil sector, the unfolding legal showdown between Femi Otedola and Umar Sani is more than just a personal defamation battle—it reflects broader tensions over accountability, historical record, and corporate conduct in a highly politicized arena. The outcome could have implications not only for those involved but also for how public narrative around subsidy abuse is managed in the future.