Following reports that the CEO of the Springfield Exploration and Production Limited (SEP), Kevin Okyere, has testified in a Ghanaian court that he was detained in Dubai, reports suggest the London arbitration is mounting pressure on him after he told a court that his dispute with the Swiss oil trader Petraco is purely commercial.
According to reports, Petraco’s complaint to the Economic and Organised Crime Office against Kevin Okyere remains pending, contrary to claims in court by the Springfield CEO that the matter had been treated in Ghana as a commercial dispute.
Parts of a news article filed by NorvanReports detailed, “According to the source, Petraco’s position is that the matter has moved through different investigative stages, including references to reports being finalised and a possible transfer to the Attorney-General’s office, but has not been finally disposed of in the manner Mr Okyere suggested during his cross-examination in court.
The source said Petraco became concerned after claims were made in connection with Mr Okyere’s detention in Dubai that the Ghana criminal complaint had been rejected.
Mr Okyere, during cross-examination in Ghana, accepted that he had been detained in Dubai, but insisted that publications around the episode were false. He also maintained that the Petraco dispute was a commercial transaction and that no fraud had been committed.
He further told the court that the petition had been investigated and that Ghanaian authorities had treated the matter as commercial.
That public admission by EOCO has become central to the emerging dispute over narrative: whether Mr Okyere’s claim of a resolved commercial matter fully captures the status of complaints and investigations surrounding Springfield, or whether formal investigative processes remain live.
The London arbitration, meanwhile, appears to have sharpened pressure on Springfield’s position.
NorvanReports’ investigations have revealed that the arbitration was conducted under LCIA Case No. 256538, involving Petraco Oil Company against Springfield Exploration and Production Limited and Springfield Energy Limited.
According to information available to NorvanReports, the case relates to a Facility Agreement dated February 7, 2023, between Petraco and Springfield Exploration and Production Limited, and a Corporate Guarantee between Petraco and Springfield Energy Limited.
NorvanReports understands that an evidentiary hearing was held between January 26 and 27, 2026, with a final award dated March 25, 2026.
The tribunal, according to information available to NorvanReports, found that a principal debt of US$50 million, disbursed in two tranches in February 2023, was due and payable to Petraco, and that Springfield Exploration and Production Limited breached the terms of the Facility Agreement by failing to repay at maturity.
The same account indicates that interest of US$7.88 million was found to have arisen on the principal debt and was awarded, alongside default interest of US$10.49 million as of January 2026.
Together, the principal debt, interest and default interest amount to about US$68.37 million. The tribunal is also said to have ordered Springfield Exploration and Production Limited and Springfield Energy Limited to pay arbitration costs of £53,088 and additional costs of £649,865 to Petraco, bringing the sterling costs component to £702,953.
NorvanReports understands that Petraco is now pursuing enforcement steps and is working to have the award made public through court processes in Ghana as part of efforts to enforce the decision.
That detail matters. Arbitration awards are often private until they enter the public domain through enforcement proceedings. Once enforcement is sought in a local court, however, the award may become part of the legal record and available for reference in subsequent reporting.
Beyond the London arbitration award, the dispute has also been complicated by a separate set of allegations tied to crude supplied to the Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company Limited, BOST.
According to information provided to NorvanReports as part of its ongoing investigations, Petraco’s complaint to EOCO includes claims that crude oil supplied through arrangements involving Petraco’s Dubai subsidiary was sold to BOST, but proceeds allegedly paid through GMP Energy and Springfield Energy were not fully remitted to Petraco’s subsidiary in Dubai.
These allegations remain subject to investigation and have not yet been determined by a court.
It is this additional claim, alongside the facility agreement dispute and related interest and costs, that Petraco’s side says brought the total alleged exposure to about US$94 million.
Mr Okyere and Springfield have, however, maintained that the matter is commercial, not criminal, and have denied wrongdoing. EOCO has previously acknowledged active Springfield-related investigations, making the status and outcome of the complaint a continuing matter of public interest”.
The report further added, “In court, Mr Okyere has taken the position that the facility was commercial. He has admitted that Springfield drew down US$50 million, but denied personally guaranteeing the debt. He has also argued that default under a loan facility does not amount to fraud, insisting that disputes over loans should be resolved through courts and arbitration.
But the unresolved question is whether the surrounding allegations made by Petraco, and the conduct complained of to EOCO, are limited to ordinary debt recovery or raise separate issues that investigators must determine.
That is why EOCO’s public position remains important. The agency has previously rejected claims that it failed to act, but in doing so it confirmed that Springfield-related investigations existed. That confirmation undercuts any simplistic suggestion that there is nothing at all before Ghanaian investigators.
For now, the facts that appear to be least in dispute are these: there was a Petraco-Springfield facility; Mr Okyere has admitted that Springfield drew down US$50 million; he has said the matter is commercial and denied fraud; a London arbitration process has produced an award in Petraco’s favour, according to information available to NorvanReports; and EOCO has publicly acknowledged active Springfield-related investigations”.
