PETRONAS and the Gambia Oil Scandal: When Silence Becomes Complicity!

Editorial Commentary

One of the most troubling dimensions of The Gambia’s offshore oil and gas saga lies in the role or more accurately, the strategic silence of PETRONAS, Malaysia’s state-owned oil and gas conglomerate.

On 28 August 2024, The Fatu Network formally wrote to PETRONAS with a series of questions concerning its former joint venture partnership with FAR Gambia Ltd in the A2 and A5 offshore blocks. There was no reply. On 13 June 2025, a follow-up letter was dispatched by Mr Ousman M’Bai, copied to Mr Muzlin Hussain, then Executive Director of PC Gambia Ltd, PETRONAS’s local subsidiary. Again, silence. A third follow-up was sent on 18 June 2025. Not a single word has been returned. Here we publish the letters!

PETRONAS and the Gambia Oil Scandal: When Silence Becomes Complicity!

By: Ousman F. M’Bai

Petronas’s silence is not mere oversight. It is strategy.

Through its now-defunct subsidiary PC Gambia Ltd, PETRONAS entered The Gambia’s A2 and A5 offshore blocks in 2018 with high expectations. It committed to fund 80% of the drilling costs and acquired a 50% equity stake for US $6 million. Yet, despite its superior technical capacity, global standing, and state-backed reputation, PETRONAS relinquished operational control. It allowed FAR Ltd a junior partner with modest offshore experience and mounting financial troubles to serve as operator. This is a deviation from industry norms where the more capable and capitalised party assumes oversight or at least insists on transparent protocols.

PETRONAS, on the other hand, did nothing of the sort.

There were no public statements about the farm-in. No assurances were offered to the Gambian people. No technical updates followed the drilling of Bambo-1 in 2021, even as FAR Ltd declared the well a “tight hole,” effectively shutting off real-time data access and preventing third-party verification. When the drilling ended nearly 100 meters short of the targeted reservoir amid reported fluid losses and ambiguous oil shows, PETRONAS quietly exited selling its 50% stake back to FAR Ltd for an undisclosed sum. By 2023, its subsidiary PC Gambia Ltd was struck off the Gambia’s company registry, dissolved without public notice, without financial disclosures, and without answering a single query.

The Chosen Partner: Silence by Design?

In a now largely overlooked video interview, then-FAR Managing Director Cath Norman revealed that it was FAR Ltd who invited PETRONAS into the Gambian joint venture. In fact, she was more direct than that. She said Petronas was ‘brought in’. This selection, she explained, stemmed from “previous working relationships” with PETRONAS executives in South Asia. Among them was likely Mr Muzlin Hussain, the Director of PC Gambia Ltd.

The partnership was not the outcome of any public tender or open vetting process. It was founded on relationships, personal, private, and opaque.

This revelation casts a long shadow. At the time, PETRONAS was still navigating reputational damage from earlier controversies surrounding shadowy investments in politically sensitive jurisdictions. Yet rather than imposing rigorous compliance measures or insisting on operational due diligence in The Gambia where regulatory oversight was minimal, PETRONAS assumed a passive role. It handed FAR full operational control, issued no statements, and posed no challenge, even as critical data went undisclosed and governance standards collapsed.

This is made even more damning when contrasted with FAR’s operations in Senegal, where it worked under the technical supervision of Cairn Energy, a UK-based company bound by strict reporting and anti-corruption obligations. Why, then, did FAR Ltd abandon such governance safeguards when operating in The Gambia? Why was PETRONAS selected over a more transparent, Western-based partner?

The Role of PETRONAS: Legitimiser, Not Overseer

In hindsight, PETRONAS’ role appears less that of an engaged investor and more that of a legitimising silent partner. Its presence lent political and commercial credibility to FAR’s project, while simultaneously guaranteeing no interference. This may well have been the reason FAR selected PETRONAS trusted enough to sign the cheques but not inclined to ask the hard questions.

The consequences of this arrangement are now painfully visible, and the world should be outraged:

• Bambo-1 well’s data remains concealed.
• FAR Ltd making a premature and potentially misleading conclusion based on an unfinished well, that it was not commercially viable.
• FAR Gambia Ltd, falsely inflated its drilling programme before exiting with regulatory waivers valued at more than US $22 million in one of the poorest countries in Africa.
• The offshore block boundary was quietly redrawn, and the A2 block’s most promising reservoir zones containing over 1.12 billion barrels of oil were excised.
• PETRONAS and FAR Ltd walked away without accountability with FAR Ltd receiving from Woodside US $122 Million upfront cash payment and US $55 million contingent payment to 2027 for its 13% stake in the Sangomar oil and gas field now known to be connected to the Gambia’s A2 block.

This was not a failure of communication; it was a strategy of omission. And for good measure, one must view this against the backdrop of FAR Ltd.’s default on capital calls to Woodside, placing it at risk of forfeiting its entire Sangomar stake without compensation. You couldn’t make it up!

No Ignorance, Only Silence: FAR’s Chief Geologist Confirms Sangomar Connection

In a striking YouTube presentation, FAR Ltd.’s Chief Geologist Peter Nicholls stated plainly: “It is not contentious that Sangomar extends into The Gambia’s A2 Block.” He confirmed that “Woodside and other partners were aware of FAR’s predrill models.” This is not speculation. It is a direct admission from FAR’s senior technical official. The silence that followed, and the regulatory inaction that enabled FAR’s exit, demand public scrutiny and legal accountability.

The people of The Gambia deserve answers. And PETRONAS must now be called to account not just for its silence, but for its complicity in a joint venture that may have facilitated regulatory evasion, obscured national resource potential, and undermined sovereign economic interests.

And the beneficiaries? Woodside Energy with its 82% grip on Sangomar; Petrosen with its 18%; FAR Ltd reaping quiet rewards; and, of course, Petronas executives—fleeing the Gambia after the raid, metaphorical suitcases full of cash in hand.

The silence is no longer sustainable. It is time for PETRONAS to speak and for the world to hear the plight of the Gambia.

Letters Section

The Fatu Network Letter to PETRONAS

Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS)
PETRONAS Twin Towers
Kuala Lumpur City Centre
50088 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

28th August 2024

Sent by email: [email protected]

Subject: Inquiry Regarding Petronas’s Role in the Gambia’s A2 and A5 Blocks and Potential Collusion with FAR Ltd.

Dear Sir,

The Fatu Network is a News and Public Media company registered in The Gambia. We recently published a lead article titled: Whither The Gambia? The Saga of a Small Nation and its Missing Oil and Gas Resources. We are working on a follow-up article to be released soon. This will cover an in-depth investigation into the activities within the MSGBC Basin, with a particular focus on the Gambia’s A2 and A5 blocks.

As you know, Petronas, through its subsidiary PC (Gambia) Ltd, was a joint venture partner with FAR Ltd in these blocks. It has come to light that Petronas may have funded the drilling costs for the wells in these blocks, yet there has been a troubling lack of transparency regarding the financial transactions and agreements made in this regard. Additionally, shortly after Woodside Energy acquired FAR Ltd.’s stake in the SNE Sangomar field, Petronas returned its 50% stake in the Gambia’s blocks to FAR Ltd, raising further concerns.

Given these circumstances, I have several questions that I believe are critical for understanding the full context of Petronas’s involvement:

1. Funding of Drilling Costs: Can Petronas confirm the nature and extent of its financial involvement in the drilling activities within the Gambia’s A2 and A5 blocks? Were there any financial transactions or agreements with FAR Ltd that remain undisclosed? If so, why were these not made transparent to relevant stakeholders?
2. Return of Stake to FAR Ltd: What prompted Petronas to return its 50% stake in the Gambia’s A2 and A5 blocks to FAR Ltd after the sale of FAR Ltd.’s stake in the SNE Sangomar field to Woodside Energy? Was this decision made independently, or was it influenced by any agreements or understandings with FAR Ltd or Woodside Energy?
3. Potential Collusion: How does Petronas respond to concerns that its actions—especially the funding of drilling costs, the lack of financial disclosures, and the return of its stake to FAR Ltd—may suggest collusion aimed at denying The Gambia its rightful stake in the MSGBC Basin’s resources? What steps has Petronas taken to ensure that all actions taken were transparent and in compliance with both local and international regulations?
4. Financial and Operational Disclosures: Will Petronas commit to disclosing all financial transactions and agreements related to its activities in the Gambia’s A2 and A5 blocks? This includes any funding arrangements, stake transfers, and any other relevant agreements with FAR Ltd and Woodside Energy.
5. Implications for The Gambia: What assurances can Petronas provide that its actions have not adversely affected The Gambia’s potential benefits from the MSGBC Basin’s resources? How does Petronas plan to address any concerns raised by the Gambian government or other stakeholders?

Transparency and accountability are essential in the management of the MSGBC Basin’s resources, and I believe that Petronas’s responses to these questions will be crucial in understanding the broader implications of its actions.

I appreciate your time and attention to this matter and look forward to your response. Should you require further information or wish to discuss these questions in more detail, I am available at your convenience.

Best regards,

Mr Seringe ST Touray
Editor-in-Chief
The Fatu Network

Letter from Ousman F. M’Bai to PETRONAS

OFFICE OF OUSMAN F. M’BAI
C/O FANA FANA CHAMBERS, P.O. Box 990, Banjul, The Gambia

To: Mr Muzli Hussain Director, PC Gambia Ltd / Representative of PETRONAS
Email: [email protected]

Cc: Group Legal Counsel, PETRONAS
Group Corporate Affairs
Board of Directors, PETRONAS
Email: [email protected]

Date: 13th June 2025
Our Ref: OFM/13/06/25/PC (Gambia) Ltd/Petronas.

Subject: Urgent Follow-Up – Request for Clarification on PETRONAS’s Role in PC Gambia Ltd and Activities in The Gambia’s A2 and A5 Blocks

Dear Mr Hussain,

I write further to my letter of 28th August 2024, for which no response has yet been received. That letter raised serious and urgent questions regarding the conduct and transparency of PC Gambia Ltd, a reported subsidiary of PETRONAS, and its involvement as joint venture partner with FAR Gambia Ltd in The Gambia’s offshore Blocks A2 and A5 from 2017 to 2023.

We are now in possession of evidence indicating that PC Gambia Ltd was quietly dissolved in 2023, following Woodside Energy’s payment of over USD $122 million to FAR Ltd for its Senegalese assets. It remains deeply troubling that PC Gambia Ltd:

• Never made a single public statement or press release during its tenure in The Gambia;
• Appears to have engaged in no on-the-ground community outreach or regulatory dialogue;
• Left no visible financial or tax footprint within the jurisdiction;
• It reportedly carried through FAR (Gambia) Ltd the entire drilling programme in the Gambia’s A2 and A5 offshore block, yet its cost-sharing, profits, or any transfer of value remain opaque.
• In 2022, PC (Gambia) Ltd quietly sold back to FAR (Gambia) Ltd its 50% stake in the Joint Venture before exiting the Gambia.

These facts raise the real concern that PC Gambia Ltd operated outside the expected bounds of transparency, governance, and local compliance.

As such, I now respectfully request PETRONAS, as parent company, to:

1. Confirm the legal and financial relationship between PETRONAS and PC Gambia Ltd;
2. Disclose the financial flows and transactions undertaken in connection with Blocks A2 and A5, particularly those relevant to joint venture costs, revenue, and asset relinquishment;
3. Provide a copy of the joint operating agreement or partnership deed with FAR Gambia Ltd;
4. Explain why PC Gambia Ltd was dissolved and whether PETRONAS assumed any outstanding liabilities or compliance obligations arising from its exit.

This letter will be released publicly within five working days unless a written response is received. Given the mounting international scrutiny surrounding FAR Ltd.’s operations and withdrawal from The Gambia, PETRONAS’s continued silence would reflect poorly on its global ESG and transparency commitments.

I remain available for clarification or engagement and would welcome a prompt and candid reply.

Yours sincerely,

Ousman F. M’Bai
British and Gambian Lawyer
Former UK Financial Crime Prosecutor & Asset Recovery Specialist