Business Hilights
Tracking Nigeria's Headline Business News Online

Advert space

Amended NLNG Act’ll present Nigeria as an unsuitable investments destination—NLNG

Quick reaction from the management of Nigeria LNG over the recent passage of a bill for the amendment of its NLNG Act by the House of Representatives has indicated that the move is not in national interest.

The Federal House of Representatives had on Tuesday passed a bill for the amendment of the NLNG (Fiscal Incentives, Guarantees and Assurances) Act.

General Manager, External Relations Division of the company, Dr Kudo Eresia-Eke, said in a statement in Port Harcourt that the direct consequence of the move would project the country as an unsuitable destination for investments.

He said “The amendment violates the Assurances and Guarantees granted the investors by the country, and reinforced by successive governments, which paved the way for the huge international investment that enabled the company to become a reality and the success story it is today”.

NLNG argued that the main thrust of the Guarantees and Assurances were to assure the foreign investors that their investments would be protected by the non-amendment of the NLNG Act.

He added that “This is the reason why the NLNG Act has remained intact and protected by all administrations from inception, in recognition of the sanctity thereof”.

Quoting the company`s Managing Director, Tony Attah, he said “the proposed amendment could only be a direct attack on the present administration`s ease of doing business agenda”.

While noting that the amendment would affect investments flow into the country, Attah averred that “This curious amendment initiative represents the first time in the history of legislative practice in Nigeria, when a law is amended for the sole purpose of imposing a levy against a private company for the benefit of an agency of government”.

He further urged the National Assembly not to inadvertently lend itself to the establishment of unjust and damaging precedent.

Attah recalled that a government Agency seeking for the amendment had lost its claim in court, including the Supreme Court.