…Dares ex NPA MD to produce evidence to back her claims
BUA Group has presented fresh evidence to substantiate its claims regarding Hadiza Bala Usman’s alleged controversial tenure as Managing Director of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA). The group accused the former MD of gross abuse of power, flagrant disregard for court orders, and unilateral termination of contractual agreements.
The conglomerate, in a statement obtained by Spear News, detailed how Usman allegedly violated multiple legal and contractual obligations in her handling of BUA’s concession of Terminal B at Rivers Port in Port Harcourt – actions that reportedly cost the company over $10 million in losses and threatened thousands of jobs.
The rebuttal followed Usman’s response to an earlier article written by the Chairman of BUA Group, Abdul Samad Rabiu, celebrating President Tinubu’s reforms, where he indicted the former NPA MD.
However, in her response, Hadiza Bala accused BUA Group of persistently violating its contractual obligations at Terminal B, Rivers Port. She claimed BUA failed to meet key terms of its 2006 concession agreement, including rehabilitation targets, payment of royalties, and compliance with safety standards—alleging the company prioritized profit over contractual duties while misleading the public about NPA’s actions.
Usman defended her 2017 termination of BUA’s lease as lawful, citing the company’s “serial breaches” and refusal to remedy defaults despite notices. She dismissed BUA’s claims of political victimization, asserting the NPA acted within its rights to protect public interest, and criticizes the company for leveraging media narratives to distort facts about the dispute.
Hadiza Bala Usman was appointed as Managing Director of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) on July 12, 2016, by then President Muhammadu Buhari. She served in the role until her suspension in May 2021 and was later fully replaced in February 2022.
She was removed following a directive from President Muhammadu Buhari, primarily due to allegations of financial mismanagement and failure to remit over N165 billion in operating surplus to the Federation Account. The suspension came after the Ministry of Transportation raised concerns about irregularities in NPA’s financial reporting under her leadership. While Usman claimed the non-remittance resulted from a disagreement with the Office of the Accountant-General over calculation methods, government investigations cited violations of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Her temporary replacement, Mohammed Koko, was later confirmed as substantive MD in February 2022 after the probe.
BUA Group has however in a fresh rebuttal presented documents, detailing what transpired during Usman’s tenure as NPA boss.
Contractual Dispute Turns Toxic
According to documents reviewed by Spear News, BUA entered into a valid lease agreement with NPA in 2006 to rehabilitate and operate the terminal. The company had been engaged in discussions with NPA to address outstanding remedial works when Usman assumed office in 2016.
Rather than continue negotiations, BUA alleges Usman used a routine safety compliance letter from the company as pretext to issue a termination notice in 2017 without warning or invoking the contract’s dispute resolution clause.
“Ms. Usman ignored the fact that NPA itself was in material breach of the agreement,” the statement read, listing failures including undredged berths, unrepaired quay walls, and inadequate security provisions that hampered operations.
Defiance of Legal Processes
When BUA secured a Federal High Court injunction against the termination, and the matter was referred to arbitration per the contract terms, Usman allegedly proceeded to illegally decommission the terminal berths – an action BUA insisted she had no contractual authority to take.
“The concession agreement granted her no such power to decommission,” BUA stated, challenging Usman to publicly cite the specific clause that authorised her actions.
In a particularly damaging allegation, BUA claimed that after briefly allowing operations to resume following the provision of requested guarantees, Usman ordered another shutdown just three weeks later – a move described as clear evidence of “personal animosity and abuse of office.”
Presidential Intervention
The crisis reportedly reached former President Muhammadu Buhari in 2018 after BUA Chairman, Abdul Samad Rabiu, presented the matter. A legal review by the Attorney General’s office found the termination unlawful and ordered reinstatement of BUA’s rights.
“President Buhari’s intervention saved over 4,000 jobs and protected our $500 million integrated investment cluster,” BUA acknowledged, while dismissing Usman’s recent claims that Buhari was “misinformed” about the situation.
Post-Usman Resolution
Following Usman’s removal in 2021, the NPA under new leadership implemented the AGF’s directives. BUA has since invested $65 million in terminal reconstruction, with completion expected in Q1 2026.
The company warned that Usman’s actions, if unchecked, would have sent dangerous signals to investors about contract sanctity in Nigeria. It praised President Tinubu’s administration for restoring due process, noting BUA’s subsequent $1 billion new investments across sectors.
While acknowledging Hadiza Bala-Usman’s right to her opinions, the statement firmly rejects any distortion of facts or historical revisionism. The group clarified they are not seeking a public confrontation but rather wish to restate key facts: Bala-Usman lacked authority to unilaterally decommission Terminal B, violated both a court order and contractual agreements, and caused substantial damages exceeding $10 million along with reputational harm to BUA and investor confidence in Nigeria. BUA Group concluded by urging her to focus on her current responsibilities under President Tinubu’s administration.
At press time, Hadiza Bala Usman had not responded to BUA Group’s allegations.
Read full statement below:
FLOUTING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, DEFYING coURT ORDERS, AND DISREGARDING ARBITRATION: THE FACTS BEHIND HADIZA BALA USMANS ABUSE OF OFFICE AS NPA MD
We have taken note of recent public statements made by Ms. Hadiza Bala Usman, the former Managing Director of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), who was sacked from office.
In her comments, she accused BUA Group and our Chairman, Abdul Samad Rabiu, of breaching a concession agreement and distorting facts. These claims were made in response to cur Chairman’s interview and article, Two Years of President Tinubu: A Business Perspective”, which celebrated Nigeria’s reform trajectory and referenced prior instances of arbitrary disruptions to business operations, without naming anyone – a situation that has now been curtailed by President Tinubu’s no-nonsense approach to bringing sanity and stability to the business environment in Nigeria. Ordinarily. we would not engage, but the distortions in her response necessitate this factual clarification, especially as they relate to her actions during her tenure as MD of the NPA,
Flouting Contractual Obligations, Defying Court Orders, and Disregarding Arbitration: The Facts Behind Hadiza Bala Usman’s Abuse Of Office as NPA MD THE CONTRACT AND WHAT SHE OMITTED BUA entered into a valid long lease agreement in 2006 with the NPA to rehabilitate and operate Terminal B at Rivers Port in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Long before Ms. Usman’s appointment, BUA had begun formal engagement with the NPA to address outstanding remedial works and infrastructural deficiencies. These discussions were near conclusion when she assumed office. Rather than build on that process, Ms. Usman ignored BUA’s requests and obligations under the agreement. In 2016, BUA wrote to the NPA under Article 8.4 of the lease, mandating concessionaires to report environmental and safety concerns and to seek approval for remedial works. Rather than act constructively, Ms. Usman used that letter as a pretext to issue a termination notice and summarily shut down the terminal, without providing any prior warning, consultation, or invoking the dispute resolution clause. She forgot or failed to disclose in her response that the NPA, under her leadership, was itself in material breach of core obligations including, failing to hand over critical portions of the port, leaving derelict iron ore on the berths, failing to dredge or repair quay walls, and neglecting to provide mandatory security. These lapses were significant impediments to BUA’s operations and, as a result, led to disputes between the parties. ILLEGALITY, CONTEMPT, AND DISREGARD FOR CONTRACTUAL MECHANISMS
After the unlawful termination, BUA approached the Federal High Court, which promptly granted an injunction restraining the NPA from proceeding with termination. The NPA itself then referred the dispute to arbitration, as stipulated in Section 17.3 of the agreement, which clearly states: “Any dispute, controversy or claim.. shall be exclusively and finally settled pursuant to the dispute resolution process prescribed in this Article.”
Despite this, Ms. Usman, against the advice of her agency, unilaterally decommissioned the berths, thereby violating both the agreement and a court injunction. To be clear, the concession
agreement granted her no such power to decommission. If she believes otherwise, we invite her to publicly cite the specific clause that authorizes this action. To further compound the illegality, BUA-after providing the guarantees and indemnities requested by the NPA-was permitted to resume operations briefly. Merely three weeks later, the terminal was again shut down, this time by Ms. Usman’s instruction. This left no doubt that her actions were motivated not by due process, but by personal animosity and abuse of office. BUA subsequently filed contempt proceedings and was looking at estimated losses in excess of $10 milion. These proceedings were only withdrawn out of respect for national interest and following the intervention of wel-meaning Nigerians within and outsidethe government. PRESIDENT BUHARI WAS NOT MISINFORMED-HE ACTED ON FACTS AND LAW Ms. Usman’s claim that former President Muhammadu Buhari was “misinformed” when he reversed her actions is false, disrespectful,
and disingenuous. Following a meeting that our Chairman had the privilege of holding with President Buhari in 2018, he presented the matter to the President, who then directed the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation to conduct a thorough legal review and investigate the situation. The AGF invited all parties, including Ms. Usman, to several meetings. We never saw her at any of them. Nevertheless, the AGF proceeded to undertake a comprehensive review of the contract, the litigation, the arbitration clause, and all correspondence and actions by BUA and NPA. The legal advice (attached herewith) found that the termination was unlawful, the decommissioning was without any legal basis, and that BUA’s rights should be reinstated. It was on this basis that President Buhari ordered the reversal of her unlawful actions. His intervention preserved the sanctity of the contract, saved over 4,000 jobs, and BUA’s $500 million integrated investment cluster involving flour, pasta, and sugar processing facilities which were all dependent on terminal access. For this, we remain deeply grateful to former President Buhari.
As our Chairman said in his interview, imagine if he wasn’t privileged to have access. Nonetheless, this culture of impunity has been significantly curtailed under President Tinubu’s leadership, as many are aware they could be dismissed or imprisoned they abuse their positons.
POST-HADIZA: DUE PROCESS RESTORED, INVESTMENT RESUMED Following Ms. Usman’s removal from office, the NPA, under new leadership, implemented the AGF’s position. In 2022, BUA was granted formal approval to resume reconstruction works. The contract was awarded to TREVI, and BUA has since invested over $65 million-entirely self-funded and with no recourse to public funds or subsidies. Work is ongoing and completion is expected in the first quarter of 2026.
THE REAL DANGER: INVESTOR CONFIDENCE AND RULE OF LAW We must state clearly that this matter goes beyond BUA. Had Ms. Usman’s actions been allowed to stand, it would have sent a disastrous signal that contracts in Nigeria are worthless, court orders are optional, and public institutions or individuals can act unilaterally without consequence. We must never return to that era. Nigeria’s reform success today is rooted in respecting contracts, due process, and investor confidence-principles being restored under President Tinubu’s administration, under which BUA has committed over $1 billion in new investments across energy, food processing, manufacturing, infrastructure and social interventions. We wish to emphasise that Ms. Usman is entitled to her opinions, irrespective of how distorted they may be. However, she is not entitled to distort the facts or rewrite history. We do not seek a public spat and would like her to concentrate on fulfilling her duties in her new role under the strong leadership of President Tinubu. We therefore simply restate the facts that Ms Hadiza Bala-Usman had no authority to decommission Terminal B unilaterally. She also acted in defiance of a court injunction and contractual procedure and her actions caused significant economic loss of over USD10 million, reputational risk to BUA, and investor concern for Nigeria.
Sign
BUA GROUP
31 May, 2025
Discussion about this post