The management team at Dangote Petroleum Refinery & Petrochemicals has launched a sweeping reorganization across its operations and workforce. The company says it initiated this overhaul after uncovering repeated acts of sabotage by certain staff members—abuses that threatened the facility’s operational safety and integrity.
According to Dangote, these internal disruptions endangered the steady output of its 650,000-barrel-per-day facility. In response, the leadership decided to restructure roles, workflows, and personnel assignments across the plant to plug vulnerabilities and protect critical infrastructure.
On September 24, 2025, Dangote’s Chief General Manager of Human Asset Management, Femi Adekunle, issued an official letter ordering the reorganization. In that communication, the management stated that recent sabotage in multiple units had raised “major safety concerns,” forcing the company to act decisively.
Adekunle wrote that the refinery had become “constrained to carry out a total reorganisation of the plant” following those incidents. The letter instructed affected staff to surrender company property to their line managers and seek exit clearance. After they obtained clearance, the Finance Department would compute their benefits and entitlements in strict accordance with their terms of service.
Despite circulating rumors that Dangote had dismissed employees en masse, a senior official from the refinery addressed YEPS on Friday to refute that interpretation. He affirmed that while the disengagement letter is genuine, many observers misconstrued its intent.
He said: “Yes, the letter is correct. But the interpretation is wrong. This affects only certain people based on findings within the refinery. It has nothing to do with unionism or anti-union actions.” According to him, this measure responds to specific security breaches, not broad personnel cuts.
He further explained, “It doesn’t mean they have been sacked. That is incorrect. What we’ve done is put a check in place. Think of it as a system cleanup to find where sabotage or leakages come from, then remedy them. Once we resolve those issues, affected persons may return. That’s why this is not a sack—and we did not use that word.”
To avoid tipping off those involved, the official said the reorganization occurred without advance notice: “We had to act swiftly. If we gave two weeks’ notice, those within the system would cover up or worsen the damage. Some sabotage has occurred repeatedly, and we must safeguard our assets.”
He clarified that refinery operations continued uninterrupted: “At this moment, employees—both Nigerians and expatriates—still work in the plant. The people affected know themselves, and those who did not receive a letter are not involved. If you had no hand in sabotage, you have no cause for concern.”
When reached for comment, Dangote’s spokesperson, Anthony Chiejina, did not respond to messages from our correspondent.
Our correspondent obtained a copy of the disengagement letter addressed to all staff of Dangote Petroleum Refinery & Petrochemicals FZE and Dangote Industries Free Zone Development Company. It read:
“In view of the many recent cases of reported sabotage in different units of the Petroleum Refinery leading to major safety concerns, Management is constrained to carry out a total reorganisation of the plant.
As a consequence of this development, we wish to inform you that your services are no longer required, with effect from the eve of Thursday, the 25th of September, 2025.
Please surrender all the Company’s properties in your possession to your line manager and obtain an exit clearance accordingly. The date for doing so will be communicated to you later.
The Finance Department, by copy of this letter, is advised to compute all your benefits and entitlements in line with your terms of employment and conditions of service, and to pay the amount due to you (less all indebtedness), subject to the condition that you have obtained the exit clearance certificate mentioned above.
We seize this opportunity to thank you for your services while you were in our employment.”
The letter emphasizes that the decision flows from safety concerns and sabotage, not from union or policy disagreements. It avoids the word “termination” and instead presents the restructuring as a necessary internal review.
Dangote Petroleum Refinery initiated operations in 2024 amid high expectations that it would end Nigeria’s decades-long dependence on imported petroleum products. With that goal in mind, the facility launched full-scale refining activities and scaled up output rapidly.
Yet by 2025, the refinery already faces operational turbulence and industrial friction. In recent months, it became embroiled in conflict with the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG). The union had accused the company of “high-handedness” in labour relations and cautioned against what it sees as a pattern of unfair practices.
At the same time, the refinery locked horns with the Depot and Petroleum Products Marketers Association of Nigeria. Marketers claim that Dangote imposed inflexible pricing and distribution terms that could distort downstream markets. These disputes underscore how the refinery has entered not only a technical and operational phase but also a socio-political battleground.
In the eyes of many observers, the sabotage allegations and mass reorganization reflect deeper tensions between management, staff, and industry stakeholders. Management attempts to steer the plant into reliable output while contending with internal threats, labour relations, and market pressures.
Dangote’s leadership frames the reorganization as a defensive necessity. From its perspective, repeated sabotage threatened operations, safety protocols, and the facility’s reputation. Those risks demanded immediate intervention rather than drawn-out procedures.
The action targeted plant units with reported sabotage, not all staff. That narrow focus, management insists, differentiates the exercise from wholesale layoffs. The official told YEPS that the company’s priority lies in restoring system integrity, not permanently severing relationships.
Moreover, management argues that a clean, sudden intervention reduces the chance of collusion. If those engaged in sabotage gain advance notice, they could cover their trails, delete or corrupt evidence, or reroute blame. A swift sweep, they argue, increases the odds of identifying perpetrators and isolating faults.
The official also implied that this reorganization carries room for redemption. Once investigations conclude and breaches resolve, Dangote intends to reabsorb some affected individuals. Thus, the move is corrective, not terminal.
Employees who received notices must surrender company assets and obtain formal clearance. Until they do, the Finance Department will withhold benefit payments. Some employees view this process as severe; others perceive it as a firm but just approach to holding staff accountable.
Workers who did not get letters remain active and unaffected. In effect, Dangote divides its workforce into two categories: those under suspicion (and temporarily sidelined) and those cleared to continue operations. Management insists that this segmentation aligns with its mission to isolate harmful practices without destabilizing the entire workforce.
By continuing operations, the plant preserves output, contracts, and supply obligations. Dangote’s officials say this approach ensures that the disruption remains as limited as possible, focused only where necessary.
Not all stakeholders accept management’s narrative at face value. Labour unions view the letter as overly severe and caution that it may signal a pattern of aggressive staff relations. Some union leaders question whether the sabotage rationale amounts to a pretext for quelling dissent or tightening control.
Critics also note the lack of transparency: the company has not publicly disclosed specific sabotage incidents or evidence. Observers wonder whether due process applies uniformly or whether the measure grants management unchecked authority.
Some industry analysts caution that mass reorganizations risk creating uncertainty, damaging morale, and deterring talent retention. A workforce unsure of job security might reduce productivity or resist cooperation. These downstream effects may counteract the intended safety gains.
Dangote now faces several critical tasks. First, management must mount detailed, credible investigations in each affected unit. It will need forensic reviews, surveillance data, and staff interviews to confirm breaches and isolate culprits. Second, for those found culpable, management will likely impose termination or redeployment. For employees cleared of wrongdoing, Dangote may reinstate their roles or offer alternative placement.
The company must also introduce stronger oversight systems—monitoring, audits, checks, and physical security measures—to mitigate future sabotage risks. Additionally, Dangote will need dialogue, transparency, and assurances to unions, regulatory agencies, and staff to diffuse hostility and rebuild corporate culture.
With media attention on the reorganization, Dangote must articulate its rationale credibly, counteract rumors of mass sackings, and emphasize safety, continuity, and fairness. The plant must maintain or recover throughput, minimize downtime, and satisfy contractual obligations to product off-takers.
Management should also track morale, reassure staff, and take steps to retain talent. Unrest or fear of arbitrary action can produce turnover or disengagement. If Dangote executes these steps judiciously, it may emerge from this crisis stronger, with a safer system and more disciplined workforce. If mismanaged, it risks deepening fragmentation, fueling dissent, and weakening public trust.
The management of Dangote Petroleum Refinery & Petrochemicals is executing a sweeping reorganization of its operations and workforce. It announced this major change after discovering repeated sabotage carried out by certain employees—conduct that threatened the plant’s operational safety.
Because sabotaging acts jeopardized the integrity of the 650,000-barrel-per-day facility, leadership opted to restructure roles, review workflows, and reassign personnel across the refinery.
On September 24, 2025, Chief General Manager of Human Asset Management, Femi Adekunle, sent an internal letter to all staff announcing the changes. In it, management cited recent sabotage episodes across multiple units and warned that safety hazards had grown untenable. The letter says the refinery “is constrained to carry out a total reorganisation of the plant.”
It instructed affected employees to return all company property to their line managers, secure exit clearance, and await benefit computations from the Finance Department according to their service terms.
Some reports claimed that Dangote had sacked large numbers of workers. But a senior refinery official contacted by YEPS disputed that take. He confirmed the letter’s authenticity but emphasized that many people misread it.
He told YEPS, “Yes, the letter is correct. But the interpretation is wrong. This affects only persons tied to suspicious findings in the refinery. It has nothing to do with unionism or targeting of any groups.” He insisted the regime amounts to internal auditing and protection, not wholesale dismissals.