Dangote Industries Limited’s management has denied allegations of involvement in illicit foreign exchange transactions and cautioned against spreading such accusations, which they consider as acts of economic sabotage against the company.
This statement comes in response to reports in certain media outlets (excluding The PUNCH) that implied the company was under investigation by the country’s Special Investigator, Jim Obazee, for suspected illegal foreign exchange dealings and money laundering.
In a statement by its media team on Friday, DIL described the allegation as “spurious and a rehash of a similar report peddled out of malice by competitors, masquerading as a concerned Nigerian in 2016.”
Dangote pointed out that these unfounded stories began circulating as far back as 2016, expressing disappointment that some media outlets had embraced these baseless narratives.
Dangote said, “The same false report back in 2016 was now being given a fresh false slant, purporting it to be a new petition directed to the attention of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Obazee.
“Subsequently, different blogs and social media platforms have been carrying variants of this arrant falsehood to the detriment of our corporate reputation.”
DIL reaffirmed that it exclusively procured foreign exchange for its numerous projects through the Interbank Foreign Exchange market in full accordance with approvals from the Central Bank of Nigeria.
The company further stated that “Letters of Credit” were established for the construction of various operational plants and the acquisition of heavy equipment and spare parts necessary for the commencement of Dangote cement plants.
“The terms and conditions for payments on the transactions were clearly spelt out in the Letters of Credit instruments and in line with the International Chamber of Commerce – Universal Customs and Practice for Documentation Credit – UCP 600.
“It is also crucial to note that the Letters of Credit in favour of Sinoma International Engineering Co Ltd (a Chinese Government owned company), being the major contractor who accounted for over 75 per cent of these expenditures were paid against the presentation of all relevant shipping documents.
“There was no single payment that was made through any Dubai company owned by us”.
