Bright Simons, Vice President of IMANI Africa, has pushed back against claims by former Energy Minister Matthew Opoku Prempeh regarding Ghana’s controversial forced unitisation policy involving oil giants Eni-Vitol and Springfield.
Simons argued that Prempeh played a central role in decisions that ultimately led to an international arbitration case, refuting the former minister’s attempts to distance himself from the debacle.
In a detailed response, Simons pointed out that “the former Minister is, unfortunately, harboring some misapprehensions about the timeline of events leading to the arbitration.”
He stressed that Prempeh had adopted his own interpretation of what constituted a directive, preventing him from acknowledging his full role in the failed policy.
According to Simons, while directives compelling the unitisation of the Eni-Vitol and Springfield oil blocks were initially issued in April, October, and November 2020 under Prempeh’s predecessor, they were later suspended in 2021.
At that point, Prempeh had assumed office and was directly involved in shaping the next phase of the policy.
“As the Arbitral Tribunal noted, following these preliminary directives in 2020, a decision was made by the political authorities at the highest level in 2021 to suspend the preliminary directives. By this time, Mr. Prempeh was in office.”
Bright Simons
Simons explained that under Prempeh’s leadership, a fresh process was initiated, culminating in a Heads of Decision (HoD) that sought to impose new terms on both parties.
This document, Simons argued, should be regarded as a substantive directive issued during Prempeh’s tenure.
However, instead of crafting a balanced resolution, the new directive appeared to favor only Springfield, leaving Eni and Vitol without consideration, ultimately jeopardizing Ghana’s interests.
“It is this NEW substantive directive, crafted and implemented during Mr. Prempeh’s term of office, that triggered the decision by Eni and Vitol to finally resort to arbitration. The proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.”
Bright Simons
Tribunal Findings Highlight Bias
Bright Simons further cited findings from the international arbitration tribunal, which indicated that Prempeh demonstrated clear hostility towards Eni and Vitol.
“…at various meetings that took place between February and October 2021, the Minister of Energy displayed his personal hostility and bias against the Claimants [Eni and Vitol] by making repeated accusations and threats.”
Bright Simons
The tribunal noted that a critical meeting on July 21, 2021, between the disputing parties, the President of Ghana, and the Ministry of Energy resulted in an agreement to suspend the unitisation directives and legal proceedings.
However, just weeks later, Eni and Vitol wrote to the Ministry, protesting that the HoD issued by the Energy Ministry “did not reflect the discussions at the 21 July meeting.”
The oil firms insisted that the agreement had been to suspend all previous directives and legal actions, but Prempeh allegedly pushed ahead with a version that ignored those terms.
“It is Mr. Prempeh’s insistence that Eni and Vitol comply with the terms of his one-sided HoD, contrary to the verbal agreements reached among the parties, which destroyed every last prospect of negotiation.”
Bright Simons
The IMANI Vice President was clear that Prempeh could not absolve himself of responsibility despite his attempts to reframe the issue.
However, he acknowledged that Prempeh had the right to view his role from his own perspective.
Notwithstanding, Simons firmly argued that this personal interpretation does not absolve him of responsibility for the tensions that ultimately led Ghana into international arbitration, resulting in highly embarrassing consequences for the country.
“Still, next time, I will be more diligent in adding footnotes to any term I use in describing the role of the former Minister so as not to offend his definitional sensibilities.”
Bright Simons
With Ghana facing the fallout from the arbitration ruling, the debate over accountability continues.
While Prempeh attempts to sidestep responsibility, Simons’ detailed breakdown—backed by tribunal records—suggests that the former Energy Minister played a much more significant role than he admits.
As the dust settles, the larger question remains: how will Ghana navigate the repercussions of this failed policy?
READ ALSO: Israeli Army Releases Investigation Into October 7 Attack
