Al-Hdhiri: How Do “Judicial Victories” Turn Into a $119 Million Settlement?.. And What Was Announced Is Nothing Compared to What Was Not

Written by: Oil legal expert Othman Al-Hdhiri

Like many others, I read today that the National Oil Corporation signed a settlement agreement with Trasta Energy in the long-running dispute over the Ras Lanuf refinery. The question is: has the story really ended?

In a surprising development, Libya’s National Oil Corporation announced the signing of a settlement agreement with the UAE-based Trasta company in a prolonged dispute related to the Ras Lanuf refinery, which had remained at the center of legal battles for years.

This announcement raises several questions that require serious consideration and objective analysis, especially given the corporation’s previous statements claiming victories in multiple stages of litigation.

Did the National Oil Corporation abandon legal achievements it had previously announced?

It is well known that the corporation repeatedly announced its success in winning legal cases against Trasta and publicized these victories on its official platforms, creating the impression that it possessed strong legal leverage in the dispute. Is it logical, then, for the المؤسسة to suddenly abandon these achievements by entering into a settlement?

This raises an important question: were those legal victories genuine and final, or merely procedural and temporary? And were there pressures or other considerations that pushed the corporation to retreat from its previous positions?

Should responsibility for the refinery shutdown since 2013 simply be ignored?

The Ras Lanuf refinery has been shut down since 2013, causing enormous losses to the Libyan economy and forcing the domestic market to rely on importing petroleum products worth billions of dollars.

So who was responsible for this shutdown? And why were the parties managing the file over all these years never held accountable? Does the new settlement contribute to solving the crisis, or does it instead close the door to accountability for those responsible for this prolonged issue?

What about the massive financial losses?

Libya incurred huge financial losses as a result of purchasing petroleum products to meet local market demand instead of operating the refinery, which had the capacity to cover a significant portion of those needs.

Did the settlement include compensation or commitments to restart refinery operations? Or was it limited to a financial settlement without future guarantees?

What are the objective reasons behind abandoning the lawsuits?

The lack of transparency surrounding the settlement opens the door to speculation. There may have been political or economic reasons pushing the National Oil Corporation toward compromise, such as international pressure, attempts to attract investments, or even behind-the-scenes arrangements that were not disclosed to the public.

This requires an official clarification from the corporation explaining the circumstances behind the decision and the reasons for abandoning cases it had long described as victories.

Is there something being hidden in this case?

The secrecy surrounding the settlement, along with the absence of clear details regarding its terms, raises suspicions that there may be hidden agreements or concessions that do not fully serve Libya’s interests.

There must be full transparency regarding this agreement, and the public should be allowed to know its details and guarantees.

Conclusion

The settlement between the National Oil Corporation and Trasta should not be viewed as a final and decisive step without careful examination of the files involved. The questions raised remain legitimate, and oversight bodies—especially the Audit Bureau—must fulfill their responsibilities.

We also hope that the management of the National Oil Corporation appears publicly before public opinion in a press conference to clarify the background of the deal.