« Réponse point par point aux contrevérités de Al Amine Lo » ( Alioune Gueye, ex-DG Petrosen)
Implicated by Prime Minister Ahmadou Al Aminou Lô during his General Policy Statement last Tuesday, former Petrosen Director General Alioune Guèye is fighting back. In a lengthy "Right of Reply" published on his Facebook page, Mr. Guèye responded "point by point" to the PM's accusations, who revealed that the Senegalese state could have recovered $55 million (30 billion CFA francs) during Kosmos's withdrawal from the Yakaar-Téranga field. Here is the full text of his response:
My Right of Reply: A point-by-point response to the falsehoods of Al Amine Lo
Yesterday, in the National Assembly, in response to the Honorable Babacar Ndiaye, the current Prime Minister, Al Amine Lo, addressed Kosmos' withdrawal from the Yakaar-Teranga block and the alleged $55 million. He targeted, without naming him, the Director General of PETROSEN who signed the withdrawal agreement. That was me. I will therefore respond, point by point, text against text.
But first, some advice for him that my mother kept hammering into me when I was young: "doomu gorr ken du ko yeḍ ci penc, nay wax deĝg fou mou tollou, boula dara djaral fenn".
Let's start with the chronology of the exchanges
On April 22, 2026, PETROSEN and Kosmos signed the joint withdrawal agreement, the result of arduous renegotiations that began in August 2024 with the contract renegotiation committee, of which I was the Chairman of the Oil and Gas subcommittee. The agreement left only one step remaining: clause 2 stipulated that the withdrawal would take effect "subject only to the publication of a Ministerial Order by the Minister of Energy, Petroleum, and Mines." The draft order was attached as Annex A, in a format agreed upon by the parties. On the same day, the Prime Minister publicly announced the "major victory" and specified that the withdrawal "would be ratified by ministerial order."
On April 24, 2026, Kosmos, in its capacity as Operator, wrote to the Minister. It notified the joint waiver, attached the signed agreement, and requested the Minister "to accept and approve this waiver by decree with immediate effect." It committed to transferring the data in accordance with Article 18.1 of the CRPP (Code of Public Policies). This is the exact implementation of what the agreement stipulated.
May 15, 2026, The Minister responds to Kosmos. He does not sign the decree. He requests a detailed statement of Kosmos's expenses and a calculation of the balance due for the 55 million, citing Articles 18 and 19 of the Petroleum Code and Articles 7.8 and 7.9 of the CRPP. PETROSEN is copied on the correspondence. On the same day, he writes separately to PETROSEN requesting an inventory of the data received from Kosmos and the same calculation of the balance.
May 19, 2026, I am replying to the Minister. I am explaining to him, with supporting documents, why this claim seems to me to have no legal basis: the agreement preserves the rights of the State (clause
but it does not create a debt; articles 7.8 and 7.9 penalize work not carried out, which has already been done; and a claim made after the agreement would jeopardize the process. I ask him to proceed without delay to sign the order.
June 1, 2026, the Minister replied. He thanked me, described my approach as "legitimate," acknowledged that his initial letter was not addressed to me but rather to Kosmos, recognized that the joint withdrawal was the Ministry's position, but indicated that he did not share my conclusions regarding the 55 million, while specifying that the matter fell under the purview of the Ministry of Finance. He copied the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance.
Since then, the order has not been signed. To my knowledge, Kosmos has never responded to the request of May 15th. No formal notice, no demand for payment. And yesterday, the Prime Minister presented the letter of June 1st as proof of a "serious breach."
Here's the sequence of events. The agreement stipulated only one step: the decree. Kosmos requested it. The Minister responded with a complaint. I challenged its legal basis. He maintained his position without resolving it. And five months later, the only thing still missing from the file is what everyone was expecting on April 22nd: the Minister's signature.
Now let's respond point by point to the falsehoods of Al Amine Lo.
1. First falsehood: "The $55 million I mentioned does exist."
That's not true. What exists is a minimum spending commitment stipulated in Article 4 of Decree No. 2024-713 of March 13, 2024, for the extension period intended for development studies. A spending commitment is not a debt. No one "owes" the State 55 million because a decree has set a minimum spending level for a study period.
What the contractor owes the State if they fail to complete the work is what the contract stipulates, and nothing else. Article 7.9 of the CRPP (Regional Planning and Development Contract) sets a fixed rate per phase of exploration work: seismic survey, first well, second well. This work has been completed: Teranga-1, Yakaar-1, Yakaar-2, and a 3D seismic survey. This represents an investment of over $300 million, now owned by Senegal. The rate has been exhausted. Therefore, there is nothing left to claim.
2. Second Falsehood: "Article 19 of the Petroleum Code stipulates that upon maturity, everything you said you were going to spend but did not spend, you must pay us for."
Here are the two articles in question, in their entirety.
Article 18 of Law No. 98-05: "The holder of a hydrocarbon exploration permit must undertake to carry out, during the initial period and, where applicable, during each renewal period, a minimum program of exploration work stipulated in the agreement."
Article 19: "If the holder of a hydrocarbon exploration permit has not fulfilled the work obligations stipulated in Article 18, he must pay the State the compensation provided for in the agreement."
Three ideas expressed by the Prime Minister are not included in either of these two articles. The word "deadline" is not there. The word "spend" is not there. His rule "what you haven't spent, you pay for" is not there.
The law aims to establish a "minimum research program" (seismic surveys, drilling), and this program must be "stipulated in the agreement." The law penalizes non-compliance with "the compensation stipulated in the agreement," not the reimbursement of an unspent budget.
However, the 55 million is neither. It's not a research program; it's a development study budget. This isn't stipulated in the agreement; it's established by an extension decree. And the compensation provided for in the agreement (Article 7.9 of the CRPP) doesn't include any provision for them. The Code refers to the contract; the contract makes no provision for the 55 million. The legal chain ends there.
This interpretation of Article 19 has been insidiously promoted to suggest one specific thing: that without the April agreement, Kosmos would have paid 55 million upon the contract's expiration in July 2026. This is false. Upon natural expiration, the only compensation due would have been that stipulated in Article 7.9, which had already been exhausted. Kosmos would have left without paying anything and without owing anything. The difference is that the State would not have received what the April agreement provided: Kosmos's written commitment to transfer all data, tapes, and assets, and to cooperate in good faith until the end. The agreement cost Senegal nothing. Natural expiration would have brought it less.
3. Third falsehood: "Someone believed they had the right to replace the State and forgive Kosmos. "
No one has taken the place of the State, and no one has forgiven anything.
The agreement of April 22, 2026, contains clause 8, which I quote verbatim: "To avoid any doubt, this agreement does not prejudice any rights of the Republic of Senegal under the CRPP." A text that expressly preserves the rights of the State cannot be the same text that erases them.
And the letter of June 1st, which Al Amine Lo himself publicly invoked, confirms this explicitly: the agreement "exclusively governs relations between Kosmos and PETROSEN," it "is not binding on the State," and "PETROSEN cannot substitute itself for the State in the exercise of its rights." I have nothing to add to this demonstration: if PETROSEN cannot substitute itself for the State, then its Director General has not done so. One cannot simultaneously argue that the agreement is not binding on the State and that it has extinguished a debt owed to the State.
Furthermore, since the government never signed the decree endorsing the withdrawal agreement, and therefore the contract naturally expired, what prevents them today from claiming their 55 million if it was truly owed?
4. Fourth falsehood: "There is a letter dated June 1st addressed by the outgoing minister to the Director General of PETROSEN which points to a serious breach."
Since the Prime Minister quotes this letter, let's set the record straight about what it is and what it says.
What it is: a response, not an accusation. As the chronology above shows, this letter is a response to the one I myself took the initiative to write on May 19, in a correspondence where the State's request was aimed at Kosmos, not PETROSEN.
What she acknowledges: on almost everything, this letter adopts PETROSEN's position.
She began by thanking me: "You mention the steps taken by PETROSEN [...]. Thank you."
She describes my approach as legitimate: "Your desire to preserve the consistency of the withdrawal process and to refocus efforts on the new license is legitimate."
She acknowledges that the joint withdrawal was the position of the Department itself: the Department was involved "to defend the position of a joint withdrawal and dissolution of the Contract, in view of the litigation risks with Timis Corporation".
She acknowledges that the payment request is aimed at Kosmos, not PETROSEN: the initial letter "was addressed to Kosmos Energy, as Operator of the COP block".
She acknowledges that the agreement could not bind the State, which is exactly my clause 8: the agreement "exclusively governs the relations between Kosmos and PETROSEN" and "is not enforceable against the State".
She commends PETROSEN's work: "This process in no way hinders the continuation of ongoing analyses and studies [...] as evidenced by recent initiatives taken by PETROSEN while Kosmos still held the permit."
And she concludes by asking me to remain her partner: "I ask you to continue the close collaboration with my services, in order to ensure complete alignment with Kosmos and to guarantee the preservation of the State's interests in this matter."
What she disputes is only one thing: the conclusions I draw regarding the 55 million. And even on this point, she doesn't take a definitive stance: she writes that "the preservation of state rights is not within the purview of the Ministry in charge of Hydrocarbons" and that the matter "must be analyzed by the Ministry in charge of Finance." A Minister who refers the matter to Finance is not identifying a "serious breach"; he is expressing a disagreement over interpretation, a matter on which he does not consider himself competent to make a final decision.
This letter nowhere states that I have committed any illegal act. It thanks me, validates my actions, confirms that the joint withdrawal was the Ministry's position, and asks me to continue working with them in their dealings with Kosmos. One does not ask someone one accuses to remain an ally. Al Amine Lo has misrepresented it.
And one question remains: the Minister wrote to Kosmos on May 15th requesting a certified statement of his expenses and the calculation of the balance. Where is Kosmos's response? Four months have passed. Al Amine Lo needs to answer this!
5. Fifth falsehood: "No one had the right to erase it."
Exactly. And nobody deleted it. That's precisely my point.
If the debt exists (which it doesn't), it exists today, untouched, against Kosmos. The Code and the contract specify exactly how to recover it. Article 17(a) of Law No. 98-05 stipulates that the agreement must define "the work obligations for each exploration period with the corresponding guarantees." Article 7.10 of the CRPP implements this requirement: the Contractor must provide the Minister, upon the entry into force of each renewal period, with an irrevocable parent company guarantee covering its obligations. And Article 7.8 provides that if the Contractor does not pay the compensation at the end of the exploration period (which was July 2026), the State will call upon this guarantee.
So I ask three simple questions.
Where is the formal notice sent to Kosmos since the expiry of the contract? Where is the call for the guarantee provided for in article 7.8?
And most importantly: where is the parent company guarantee that Article 17 of the Code and Article 7.10 of the CRPP required of Kosmos during the extension in March 2024?
If this guarantee exists, let it be invoked. Nothing in our agreement has ever prevented it. If it doesn't exist, then what's missing from the State's file isn't my signature from April 2026, but a due diligence that the law required of it two years earlier. In either case, the issue isn't what I signed. It's what the State failed to do.
6. “beugou ma ci woona agg...waye agg na ci. »
On April 22, 2026, then Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko declared: “We have obtained and signed, without any financial compensation for Senegal, the joint withdrawal agreement of Kosmos and Petrosen [...]. A major victory.” And he specifically congratulated the Director General of PETROSEN for “the excellent work accomplished and the perfect alignment with government directives.”
If $55 million were owed to Senegal, a withdrawal "without any financial compensation" would not have been a victory: it would have been a loss, and the Prime Minister would have said so that day. He said the opposite. And if my signature was "perfectly aligned with government directives," then the directive was that of the government.
Nothing has changed in the regulations between April 22nd and yesterday. Neither the Petroleum Code, nor Decree 2024-713, nor the CRPP (Regional Petroleum Products Regulations). Only the interpretation has changed. And the regulations are not interpreted differently depending on the season.
7. For threats “leegui dinañu xam fa muy mudj ee”
I wish it as much as he does.
I am available to any institution of the Republic (National Assembly, Court of Auditors, judiciary) to answer for this signature. I will come with the agreement, the Code, the CRPP, the decree, the declaration of April 22, and all relevant correspondence.
I proudly secured the withdrawal of an operator from Senegal's most promising deposit, an operator who was hesitant to make an investment decision, without costing the State a single cent, preserving over $300 million in assets, obtaining a written and fulfilled commitment to return all data, and protecting the block against claims from the Timis era. I stand by this action. I will stand by it before anyone who wishes to believe it, with the legal documents, and nothing but the legal documents.
Commentaires (54)
Gueye DG ! Indemnité ou remboursement, Kosmos doit à l'Etat du Sénégal. Dit nous combien ?
On dirait Ciré Cledor Ly qui plaide pour son client Kosmos.
L’ex-directeur de Petrosen est en train de polluer ce dossier. Le dossier serait entre les mains de l’IGF. Il ne sert donc à rien de s’adresser à l’opinion publique.
Les sénégalais doivent se battre pour le retour à l’orthodoxie pour le secret des décisions administratives entre les concernés. Malheureusement, sur ce chapitre, Kiiraye moy Pastef et Pastef moy Kiiray. Il n’y a plus de secret des délibérations et les ministres mettent sur la place publique des propos tenus en Conseil des Ministres. Le Sénégal va être sous administré à cause de la mise sur la place publique de décisions censées être dans un circuit sécurisé. J’ai mal au Senegal.
Au cas contraire, il faut dissoudre nos gouvernements, car il n'y a aucune organisation hiérarchique ni des verrous administratifs pour qu.un simple dg puisse prendre une telle décision dans son coin et aucun service de l'état n'est en copie des échanges et emails.
Ces gens sont tellement imbéciles et nuls qu’ils ne savent même pas bien mentir.
Et ils ont engagé Al Amine dans un bourbier où il ne pourra pas sortir car aucun texte ne prévoit ce qu’il a raconté à l’assemblée et le gouvernement de Sonko ne pouvait pas imposer un nouveau texte a un accord qui a été signé avant leur arrivée.
Et c’est là où se situe l’importance de ne pas laisser au seul président de la république, le droit de signer des accords sur nos ressources sans passer par l’assemblée nationale car c’est ce qui a permis au gros criminel et sa bande de s’enrichir.
Gueye, Gueye Gueye !
Indemnité ou remboursement... Le fait est que Cosmos DOIT à l'Etat du Sénégal à la lecture de son très long plaidoyer.
Ce que nous traversons actuellement découle de l’exacerbation des passions égoïstes, avides et cupides. Notre situation exige des mesures inédites. Respectons et allouons la paix, la déférence et la tranquillité d’esprit à ceux qui en portent la lourde charge d’y concevoir remèdes et issues.
Pour survivre, nous avons besoin de nous entendre, que chacun face preuve de sociabilité et « ouvrir son esprit au monde en le monde »
Macky a cédé ce bloc a une entreprise qui venait d'être créée, incapable d'exploiter le gisement et il savait pertinemment. La vraie question c'est pq et comment. Faut nous édifier la dessus.
Nous voilà avec beaucoup d'années de retard qui portent préjudice au pays
ll a donné des arguments valables donc n"a rien à se rapprocher et se met à disposition. Je salue cette posture.
Peut être que le PM , Mr Lô a reçu de fausses informations des nouveaux dirigeants en place . on verra la suite ....
Ca donne ca à la fin. Souley Diop a toujours pris ses precautions, il connait ses amis.
Une question de calendrier n'est pas directement traitée dans la réponse publique de Guèye. Le montant de 300 millions de dollars qu'il cite couvre des investissements remontant à 2016-2017 — ce que confirment de manière indépendante les propres publications financières de Kosmos, qui ont enregistré une dépréciation de 144 millions de dollars de coûts de puits suspendus datant de cette période dans ses résultats du quatrième trimestre 2025, publiés en mars 2026. Le plancher de 55 millions de dollars, en revanche, est explicitement circonscrit par le décret à la période de prorogation de 2024 consacrée aux études de développement — une phase postérieure et distincte de la vie de la licence.
Le ministre n a pas signé la clause des 55millions, donc pas d irrégularité..
Par contre on ne voit pas la pertinence d une renégociation alors que le contrat était presque arrivé à échéance..
On a l impression que les dirigeants, l actuel PM comme l ancien, se font facilement berné par leur collaborateurs. C est trop léger de se comporter ainsi pour un PM.
Participer à la Discussion
Règles de la communauté
💡 Astuce : Utilisez des emojis depuis votre téléphone ou le module emoji ci-dessous. Cliquez sur GIF pour ajouter un GIF animé. Collez un lien X/Twitter, TikTok ou Instagram pour l'afficher automatiquement.
Se connecter
Commentez avec votre profil, votre photo, et soyez averti des réponses.