Cross River Promotion Row: Group Demands Review Of NUPRC Senior Management Exercise
By BASSEY BENSON
A controversy has emerged over the 2026 senior management promotion exercise of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), with a Cross River-based group calling for an independent review of the process.
The National Patriotic Front for Tinubu (NPFFT) alleged that Cross River indigenes were left out of the final list despite being represented among officers considered for promotion.
The group’s Director-General, Castro Ezama, made the allegation in Calabar on Thursday.
106 Officers Promoted
According to Ezama, the exercise produced 106 promotions across four senior management cadres.
The cadres covered promotions from Manager to Senior Manager, Senior Manager to Assistant Director, Assistant Director to Deputy Director, and Deputy Director to Director.
Ezama said Cross River indigenes were represented among officers across the four levels.
However, he alleged that none was eventually listed among those promoted.
He further claimed that other South-South states recorded at least three successful officers each.
For the group, that reported difference warrants an examination of the underlying records.
‘We Are Not Seeking Favour’
Ezama stressed that the NPFFT was not asking NUPRC to promote Cross River indigenes because of their state of origin.
Rather, he said the group wanted the commission to demonstrate that the exercise followed uniform and transparent criteria.
He said competence, performance, assessment results and other established requirements should determine promotion outcomes.
The group therefore wants NUPRC to publish state-by-state results showing eligible, assessed and successful officers in each cadre.
It also wants the commission to protect personal information and other legitimate confidential details while making enough information available for meaningful scrutiny.
Demand for Appeal Mechanism
The group is also calling for greater access to individual promotion results.
Ezama said officers who were not promoted should be told how they performed and why they were unsuccessful.
He further called for a credible appeal mechanism through which employees could challenge disputed outcomes.
Such a mechanism, he argued, would give affected officers a formal route to seek clarification instead of relying on public allegations or speculation.
Federal Character Commission Urged to Act
Beyond the NUPRC, the group wants the Federal Character Commission to examine the exercise.
Ezama said the commission should determine whether applicable federal character requirements and guidelines were observed.
He also called on relevant Senate committees to request the promotion records and scrutinise the process.
According to him, legislative oversight could help establish the facts and provide a basis for resolving the controversy.
Abe Gives a Different Account
NUPRC Board Chairman, Senator Magnus Abe, offered a different explanation of the promotion process.
He said promotion within the commission was determined by employees’ work, performance assessments and management recommendations.
Abe said ethnicity and state of origin were not the basis for promotion decisions.
He advised employees who were not promoted to remain patient, noting that further promotion opportunities would become available.
The NUPRC chairman also encouraged complainants to use the commission’s established channels to present their grievances.
He assured them that genuine complaints would be reviewed.
Records Could Settle the Dispute
The controversy now rests on a straightforward question: how were the promotion decisions reached?
The NPFFT has raised concerns about the reported absence of Cross River indigenes from the successful list.
NUPRC, on the other hand, maintains that promotion decisions were based on performance and management recommendations.
The publication of appropriate aggregate data, assessment criteria and review procedures could help distinguish between an allegation of exclusion and an outcome explained by the commission’s established promotion process.
That is why the calls for records and an appeal mechanism have become central to the dispute.
If the relevant information is made available while protecting employees’ personal data, the controversy could be assessed on evidence rather than competing claims.
