The National Patriotic Front for Tinubu has demanded an explanation from the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission over what it described as the alleged exclusion of Cross River State indigenes from the commission’s 2026 promotion exercise NEGROIDHAVEN has confirmed.
The group claimed that while 106 officers were promoted across four management cadres, no Cross River indigene was among those listed as successful.
It made the allegation in a statement signed by its Director-General, Castro Ezama, and issued ahead of a World Press Conference on the matter.
According to the group, the promotions covered the ranks of Manager to Senior Manager, Senior Manager to Assistant Director, Assistant Director to Deputy Director, and Deputy Director to Director.
NPFFT claimed that Cross River indigenes were represented among officers in each of the affected cadres and that at least seven were due for promotion, but none was successful.
The organisation also alleged that other states in the South-South recorded successful candidates, citing six or more from Edo, six or more from Delta, three from Bayelsa, eight from Rivers and three from Akwa Ibom.
The group, however, stressed that it was not demanding promotion for any officer solely on the basis of state of origin.
It said promotions should be determined by eligibility, competence, performance, experience and the approved assessment procedures of the commission.
“The issue before the public is therefore not a demand for preferential treatment. It is whether qualified Cross River indigenes received the same fair opportunity as their colleagues and whether the overall exercise can withstand constitutional, administrative and professional scrutiny,” the statement said.
NPFFT said the reported outcome raised questions about the uniform application of the eligibility requirements, scoring system, interview process, moderation and approval procedures used for the exercise.
It also demanded an explanation of how an exercise involving 106 promotions across four management levels resulted in no successful Cross River indigene despite the alleged presence of Cross River officers within the affected cadres.
The organisation called on the NUPRC management and governing board to permit an urgent and impartial independent review of the exercise.
It also demanded a state-by-state and cadre-by-cadre breakdown of eligible, assessed and successful officers, subject to applicable data-protection requirements.
The group further asked the commission to disclose the approved eligibility requirements, assessment criteria, score weightings, pass marks and moderation procedures used in the exercise.
NPFFT urged NUPRC to allow affected officers to obtain their individual results and reasons for the decisions reached on their cases, as well as provide a fair appeal mechanism.
It also called for the verification of personnel records, scores and assessments of affected Cross River officers and correction of any error, inconsistency or unfair treatment established by a review.
The group appealed to the Federal Character Commission to examine the state-of-origin distribution and decision-making process in the promotion exercise to determine whether applicable federal character requirements and guidelines were observed.
It also urged the relevant Senate committees on petroleum resources to request the promotion records and investigate the allegation.
The organisation said a transparent inquiry would establish whether the exercise complied with applicable rules or whether corrective action was required.
NPFFT also appealed to the Federal Government to ensure that federal institutions applied merit, due process and federal character in a manner that was transparent and capable of being reviewed.
The group called for a supplementary promotion list for Cross River State indigenes, while urging affected officers to remain calm and law-abiding.
It maintained that its intervention was not an attack on the NUPRC or its leadership but a demand for facts, accountability and lawful redress.
“If the reported figures are inaccurate, NUPRC should publish the correct position. If the figures are accurate but the decisions were justified by consistently applied criteria, the Commission should demonstrate that through an independent review,” the statement added.
NPFFT said errors, bias, unequal treatment or non-compliance established through the review should be corrected.
As of the time of the statement, the group did not provide the names of the 106 promoted officers or documentary evidence independently establishing the claimed state-by-state distribution.
NUPRC’s response to the allegations was also not contained in the statement.
