Ghana’s former Minister of Energy and Running Mate to Dr Mahamadu Bawumia in the 2024 presidential elections, Dr Matthew Opoku Prempeh, has come under intense scrutiny following fresh revelations concerning his role in the controversial unitisation dispute between Italian energy giant Eni, Swiss commodities trader Vitol, and Ghanaian firm Springfield.
The dispute, which culminated in an international arbitration ruling against Ghana, has become a focal point in the country’s energy governance discourse.
In a pointed response to a statement from Mr. Opoku Prempeh, policy analyst and Vice-President of IMANI Africa, Bright Simons, accused the former minister of misrepresenting his role in the affair.
According to Simons, Opoku Prempeh’s insistence on pushing through a contentious Heads of Decision (HoD) in 2021—despite earlier directives being suspended—was the decisive factor that forced Eni and Vitol to seek arbitration.
The dispute originated in 2020 when the then-Energy Ministry issued directives compelling unitisation of the Eni-Vitol-operated Sankofa oil field with the adjacent Afina discovery controlled by Springfield.
The directive was initially pushed under the leadership of former Energy Minister John-Peter Amewu but was subsequently suspended in 2021 under Opoku Prempeh’s tenure following high-level political intervention.
Despite this suspension, Opoku Prempeh introduced a new framework under the HoD, which, according to Simons, largely disregarded the concerns of Eni and Vitol while favoring Springfield. This action, he argues, exacerbated tensions and directly led to arbitration proceedings.
A key extract from the tribunal’s ruling appears to support Simons’ assertion, stating that between February and October 2021, the Energy Minister displayed “personal hostility and bias against [Eni and Vitol] by making repeated accusations and threats.” Furthermore, tribunal records confirm that an agreement was reached at a meeting on July 21, 2021, attended by Ghana’s President, in which all parties agreed to suspend the directive and associated litigation.
However, just weeks later, Eni and Vitol challenged the formal HoD issued by Opoku Prempeh’s office, arguing that it did not reflect the verbal agreements reached at the July meeting. Their failure to secure what they saw as a fair outcome prompted them to escalate the matter to international arbitration, where Ghana suffered a significant legal defeat.
Simons contends that Opoku Prempeh’s latest attempt to dissociate himself from responsibility does not hold up against the factual timeline. “If, despite the record, he chooses not to call his instructions to Eni-Vitol ‘directives,’ he is free to do so,” Simons remarked in his response. “This entitlement, however, does not negate his contribution to the animosity that landed Ghana in international arbitration, with such embarrassing results.”
The fallout from the arbitration ruling has been costly for Ghana, further straining relations with international investors and raising concerns over regulatory instability in the energy sector.
Industry observers argue that the dispute underscores the importance of transparency and consistency in Ghana’s oil and gas policies. As the government seeks to attract more foreign investment into the sector, the lessons from the Eni-Vitol-Springfield saga will likely shape future approaches to resource management and dispute resolution.
