United Kingdom-based firm BB Energy has obtained an urgent injunction from the High Court in London, halting South Sudan from exporting a multimillion-dollar crude oil shipment as the company pursues repayment of a US$100 million loan issued to Juba earlier this year.
The order, issued on 18 November by Judge Christopher Butcher, bars the South Sudanese government from delivering, selling, or in any way disposing of a 600,000-barrel cargo that was scheduled to depart Port Sudan on 27 November.
The crude, valued at more than US$20 million, was among the consignments BB Energy claims should have been allocated to them under a financing arrangement signed in February 2024.
Under that agreement, BB Energy advanced US$100 million to South Sudan with the understanding that the loan would be repaid through regular oil shipments.
However, according to court filings, the government allegedly failed to honour its commitments.
BB Energy argues that instead of supplying them with the agreed-upon cargoes, some shipments were diverted and sold to other buyers, leaving the firm short of millions of dollars in expected repayments.
The company turned to the High Court seeking emergency intervention to prevent what it described as further dissipation of assets that should rightfully service the outstanding loan.
The injunction now ensures that the disputed shipment remains untouched until a full hearing determines whether South Sudan breached the financing deal and what remedies BB Energy is entitled to.
The case shines a spotlight on the fragile financial position of South Sudan, where oil revenues constitute nearly the entirety of government income.
Years of conflict, economic instability, and dwindling production have left the country increasingly dependent on pre-financing arrangements with international traders — deals that often come with high risks and steep repayment obligations.
South Sudan owes hundreds of millions of dollars in oil-backed loans to several regional and international financiers.
These debts stem from years of borrowing against future crude oil deliveries, a practice the government has relied on to plug budget gaps and finance political spending.
One of the largest creditors is the African Export–Import Bank (Afreximbank), to which South Sudan owes approximately US$657 million.
These facilities were structured as oil-backed loans, requiring the government to repay using future crude shipments. Despite multiple restructuring attempts, the bulk of the debt remains outstanding.
Another major lender is Qatar National Bank (QNB), which provided an oil-backed loan initially worth US$631 million, later restructured to about US$700 million.
Court documents in the UK and filings cited by industry analysts indicate that South Sudan has repaid only a small fraction of this amount, roughly US$71 million, leaving a significant balance still owed.
South Sudan also owes substantial sums to Nasdec General Trading, a UAE-based commodities trader.
The government reportedly borrowed up to US$539 million from Nasdec under crude-for-credit arrangements. UN experts and recent trade reports suggest that more than US$400 million of this debt remains unpaid.
Additionally, the country has outstanding obligations to Sahara Energy Resources, another UAE-linked trading firm.
While the total financing extended to South Sudan was around US$348 million, the government still owes approximately US$128.7 million under this facility.
Beyond existing debts, South Sudan is engaged in negotiations for an even larger oil-backed deal with the Hamad Bin Khalifa Department of Projects, a Dubai-based entity.
According to UN Panel of Experts reports, the proposal involves a €12 billion (about US$13 billion) loan to be repaid over many years through crude oil allocations.
Though not finalised, the scale of the proposal has raised concerns about long-term debt sustainability.
The BB Energy case adds to the many oil-backed loans that have placed South Sudan in a precarious financial position, heavily mortgaging future oil production, limiting fiscal flexibility, and raising the risk of further disputes with international creditors.
(Sudan Post)
