Energy and Metals Industries Limited (EMI) has rejected media reports portraying its Co-Founder, Dr. Innocent Ozoemena Ezuma, as having defrauded a foreign investor of approximately $120 million, insisting that the allegations misrepresent the nature of a longstanding investment and business relationship.
The company, in a statement issued in Abuja on November 3, 2026, said the controversy should be examined within the context of investment agreements, corporate arrangements, project development activities and ongoing judicial proceedings between the parties.
EMI maintained that its relationship with the foreign investment partners was established through formal corporate and investment agreements designed to facilitate mining, energy and industrial development projects in Nigeria.
According to the company, the business relationship dates back to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on March 23, 2008, in Kyiv, Ukraine, which provided for the establishment and development of EMI and the acquisition of mineral exploration and extraction licences.
The company said the agreement contemplated an investment portfolio of up to $1.5 billion, with approximately 20 per cent of the proposed investment expected to come from the foreign investor through interest-free credits, while the remaining funds were to be sourced from independent financial institutions.
EMI added that the arrangement was subsequently complemented by a Corporate Agreement dated January 30, 2013, covering the development of a coal-fired power generation project at Itobe, Kogi State.
The company argued that the agreements established a corporate investment framework involving shareholder participation, funding arrangements and the development of strategic industrial assets, rather than a straightforward personal financial transaction involving its Co-Founder.
MINING AND POWER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
In defending its position, EMI said the projects recorded regulatory, exploration and technical milestones over the years, contrary to suggestions in some media reports that little or no substantive development had taken place.
The company disclosed that the Federal Ministry of Mines and Steel Development, now the Ministry of Solid Minerals Development, granted reconnaissance permits, exploration licences and mining leases covering mineral resources including copper, gold, lead and zinc.
According to EMI, one of the mining leases became effective on September 10, 2014, and is expected to remain valid until September 9, 2039.
The company also outlined exploration activities undertaken in Kogi and Zamfara States.
For the Kogi project, EMI reported that exploration activities included 57 boreholes covering 6,025 metres, 11 trenches spanning 970 metres, 78 test pits, geological mapping and geophysical surveys.
In Zamfara, the company said the exploration programme involved geological mapping, 385 soil geochemical samples, geophysical surveys, trench investigations and shallow prospect workings, alongside a preliminary inferred gold resource estimate.
EMI further stated that the exploration programmes underwent technical reviews by SRK Exploration Services of the United Kingdom and CSA Global of Australia, including assessments of sampling procedures and quality assurance protocols.
It acknowledged that further drilling, metallurgical testing, environmental assessments and comprehensive feasibility studies were identified as necessary steps towards a final investment decision.
On the power sector component, the company said Itobe-1 Coal Power Limited obtained a Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) licence for a proposed 300-megawatt on-grid coal-fired power generation project.
According to EMI, the licence became effective in December 2014 and was subsequently renewed until September 29, 2031.
The company said these developments demonstrated that the investment relationship had progressed through regulatory and technical stages, although it did not suggest that the proposed projects had reached full commercial operation.
COMPANY ADDRESSES ALLEGATIONS OF FUND DIVERSION
EMI also responded to reports alleging that investment funds were diverted to companies and individuals allegedly associated with Dr. Ezuma, including members of his family.
The company disputed the presentation of such claims as established facts, insisting that any alleged financial transactions should be assessed through verifiable records and within their appropriate corporate and commercial context.
It maintained that business or family associations alone should not be treated as evidence of financial misconduct.
EMI said it remained prepared to provide relevant corporate, investment and project documentation through appropriate lawful channels.
JOS STEEL MILL ACQUISITION
The company also addressed references to the Jos Steel Rolling Company Limited in media reports concerning the allegations.
According to EMI, its management team led the transaction involving the acquisition of the assets of the defunct Jos Steel Rolling Company Limited in 2005, three years before the investment relationship with the foreign partner was formalised in 2008.
It stated that Zuma Steel West Africa Limited acquired the assets from the Federal Government following a court-supervised liquidation process involving the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) and executed an Asset Purchase Agreement.
EMI further argued that challenges associated with unreliable and expensive electricity supply had historically affected the operations of energy-intensive industries, including mining, steel production and manufacturing in Nigeria.
The company said such operational realities should be considered when assessing the progress and commercial circumstances surrounding large-scale industrial projects.
COMMERCIAL DISPUTE BEFORE THE COURTS
On the legal dimension of the controversy, EMI disclosed that disputes arising from the business relationship had resulted in arbitration proceedings and subsequent court cases.
The company identified LCIA Arbitration No. 194203, involving Tooley Property Company Limited and Energy and Metals Industries Limited, as one of five arbitral awards dated January 17, 2020.
It said the Zuma companies had, since March 2020, been challenging the five arbitral awards before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/001/2020, on grounds including alleged illegality, misconduct and lack of jurisdiction.
EMI further disclosed that separate applications seeking recognition and enforcement of the awards, including the one involving the company, were filed in Suit Nos. FCT/HC/CV/1811 to 1815/2022.
According to the company, it and its associates have opposed the enforcement applications.
EMI said it would allow the courts to determine the matters before them rather than litigate the dispute through the media.
It also stressed the need to distinguish between commercial disagreements, arbitral awards and allegations of criminal wrongdoing, noting that they constitute separate legal issues.
EMI SPEAKS ON EFCC INVESTIGATION
The company also acknowledged the statutory responsibility of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to investigate allegations of financial and economic crimes.
It said it had no intention of obstructing any lawful investigation and maintained that Dr. Ezuma was willing to cooperate with relevant authorities.
However, EMI emphasised that allegations under investigation should not be treated as established findings of guilt.
The company noted that Dr. Ezuma had not been convicted of any offence in connection with the allegations, adding that the constitutional presumption of innocence under Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, remained applicable.
It expressed concern that the circulation of allegations without adequate context or an opportunity for affected parties to respond could cause reputational damage to the company, its management, employees and business partners.
COMPANY SEEKS BALANCED MEDIA COVERAGE
EMI called on media organisations reporting the controversy to consider its position and the documentary records it said were available.
The company urged journalists to distinguish allegations from facts established by competent courts, examine the investment agreements and corporate arrangements, consider the reported regulatory and technical milestones, and acknowledge the ongoing judicial proceedings.
It also called for affected parties to be given fair opportunities to respond to material allegations.
While acknowledging the importance of public accountability and media scrutiny, EMI maintained that reporting on the matter should be guided by accuracy, fairness, balance and respect for due process.
The company said it reserved its legal rights and remedies concerning publications it considers false, defamatory or materially misleading.
Reaffirming its position, EMI said the commercial relationship had produced investment agreements, mining licences, exploration activities and power-sector regulatory approvals, which it believes should form part of any objective assessment of the controversy.
It maintained that the outstanding issues should be resolved through documentary evidence, lawful investigations and judicial processes rather than premature public conclusions.
