Oil Cabal Behind Attacks On Aig-Imoukhede, Chair Of Presidential Panel On Subsidy Verification To Discredit Report!

…details of the grand plot

Insiders with in-depth knowledge of the on going intrigues an drama concerning the fuel subsidy probe have revealed that, recent attacks on Chairman of the Presidential Panel on Fuel subsidy verification, Mr Aigboje Aig Imoukhuede are the handiwork of the group tagged ‘Oil Cabal’.

These are the Oil marketers that grossly benefited from the scraped exercise- and are hugely indicted in the fuel subsidy reports Imoukhuede’s panel is working on.

The aim of the ‘attacks’ alleged to be a concerted effort on the public domain are said to be geared towards discrediting the report and final outcome of the presidential committee’s work.

The subsidy report recommends repayment of goverment fund by indicted Oil firms- Imoukhuede’s committee’s duty is to verify and reconcile the records of payments on fuel subsidy.

The aim is to authenticate the guilt of offenders- after the bribery scandal that tarnished the work of the Farouk Lawan led House of Reps probe panel on fuel subsidy.

Here is a link to the scandal.

Information made available revealed that the indicted cabal fears most of the recommendations will be upheld- particularly the repayment of funds.

According to the sources the grand plot to discredit the headman- and let the effect rub off the entire committee and it’s effort.

The campaign against the Access bank helms man is premised on ownership of an allegedly indicted Oil firm he owns.

The foundation for this accusation was provided via findings reported made by a group known as ‘ Youth Alliance Against Fuel Subsidy Removal’.

The group alleged that ‘ Mr. Aig-Imoukhuede, who is the Group Managing Director, Access Bank Plc, also owns Ice Energy Petroleum Trading Limited, which allegedly received $2,131,166.32 in hard currency (about N345.3 million) in 2011.’

The group relied on the inclusion of the name ‘Mr Aig Imoukhuede’ as part owner of the business with the corporate affairs commission to make it’s assertion.

This disclosure is against the background that Ice Energy is listed as one of the companies that failed to deliver product it received fund for.

The conclusion that is the central focus of perception against Imoukhuede is that, ‘he is part of the cabal he is probing!’

However the affected Oil firm, Ice Energy has absolved the bank boss- with documents to prove.

The firm’s helms man, Chuks Iroche just proved that the Aig Imoukhuede listed as part owner of the company is another person.

And also made another bold stance- the inclusion of Ice Energy in the offenders list is in error.

He claimed the firm is innocent off all accusations.

Mr Iroche made his clarifications and backed up his claims with the statements and documents reproduced below.

The statement as used by saharareporters.com

‘Ice Energy Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, Chuks Iroche, said the company, alleged by the Farouk Lawan Committee to have pocketed $2,131,166.32 in hard currency (about N345.3million) in 2011 without supplying petroleum products, has no relationship whatsoever with the Access Bank boss, rather with his “junior relative”, Aigbovbioise Aig-Imoukhuede.

“Aig-Imoukhuede on our Board is a younger relative of the CEO of Access Bank,” Mr Iroche said.

Mr. Iroche, who also used the statement to absolve his company of any complicity in the alleged massive fraudulent activities by marketers in the fuel subsidy scam, said Ice Energy did not appear before the Farouk Lawan probe committee because no invitation was extended to it, contrary to claims by the committee that it flagrantly ignored same.

Similarly, he claimed that allegations by the former House Committee that his company collected huge foreign exchange for products not supplied as well as claims that Ice Energy benefitted from subsidy payments, were false, as the oil firm had written to the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA) to cancel the importation allocation it received when it became obvious that it would not be able to meet the deadline set for product delivery.’