Nestoil Limited has dismissed recent media reports suggesting that banks’ suspension of dividend payments was linked to an alleged debt owed by the company, describing the narrative as a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and damage its reputation.
The company also accused First Bank of Nigeria and its leadership of orchestrating a coordinated media campaign through several national and online platforms.
The energy firm reacted to publications across The Guardian, The Nation, Leadership, Vanguard, Nairametrics, TheCable, and other outlets, which reportedly tied the dividend halt to financial exposure involving Nestoil.
It firmly rejected the claims, insisting that the decision by banks to suspend dividend payments originated from regulatory action issued by the Central Bank of Nigeria.
In a strongly worded response, Nestoil said the reports were not only inaccurate but also intentionally crafted to distort facts.
It further cautioned that it would take legal steps against First Bank and all media organisations involved if the alleged defamatory publications continue.
According to the company, the storyline being circulated was inconsistent with established regulatory history.
It recalled that in June 2025, the same media platforms had widely reported a CBN directive that temporarily halted dividend payments and executive bonuses for banks operating under regulatory forbearance or exemptions from the Single Obligor Limit.
Nestoil referenced the policy, stating: “Our attention has been drawn to a series of publications in The Guardian, The Nation, Leadership, Vanguard, Nairametrics, TheCable, and some other online news platforms, on Monday, May 4, 2026, allegedly sponsored by FirstBank and its Chairman, in which they attributed the failure of banks to pay dividends to shareholders to a purported debt owed by our company.”
The company maintained that the regulatory measure was a prudential step aimed at strengthening the banking sector, adding that institutions under such conditions are restricted from paying dividends until their financial positions are properly restored. It therefore argued that attributing the suspension to Nestoil was misleading and contradictory.
Nestoil further stated: “This narrative is not only misleading but a calculated distortion of facts, designed to misinform the investing public, tarnish the reputation of our organisation, and divert attention from the real regulatory and structural issues within the Nigerian banking sector.”
It also questioned the consistency of the reports, pointing out that the same facts widely acknowledged in 2025 were being ignored in recent publications. The company alleged that this shift was part of a deliberate effort by First Bank and its Chairman to influence public perception.
Addressing the media coverage, Nestoil added: “It is deeply troubling that respected media platforms would lend themselves to such a one-sided and demonstrably inaccurate storyline without proper verification or balance.”
The firm insisted it was being wrongly positioned as the cause of broader sectoral challenges, stressing that such claims were false and damaging to both its reputation and investor confidence.
It further stated: “To isolate one company and elevate it as the primary cause of sector-wide financial adjustments is both inaccurate and misleading. What we are witnessing is a deliberate attempt to weaponise public opinion by framing a legal and commercial matter as a systemic crisis caused by one entity.”
Nestoil also expressed concern that the dispute, which is already before the courts, was being discussed publicly in a manner that could prejudice judicial proceedings. It maintained that the matter remains subjudice and should be left for legal determination.
According to the company, “It is important to emphasise that the matters being referenced in these publications are already subject to ongoing legal proceedings. The issues between Nestoil and FirstBank are before competent courts of law. As such, they are subjudice.”
The energy company warned that continued publication of what it described as false narratives would leave it with no choice but to pursue legal remedies against both media outlets and those behind the claims. It reiterated its commitment to defending its reputation and insisted that accountability would be enforced through the courts if necessary.
