A dispute over the control of A&B Energy Limited has taken a fresh turn after Kenyan-Somali businessman Abdirizak Mukhtar and his associates lodged a legal complaint against South Sudan’s Eye Radio over an investigative report accusing foreign businessmen of taking control of assets belonging to the petroleum company.
Through Juba-based Legal Right & Co. Advocates, Mukhtar, TICSOM General Trading Company Limited and Daniel Thel Anyi filed a complaint with South Sudan’s Media Authority on August 25, 2026, demanding a correction or apology and hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation.
The complaint followed an August 21 report by Eye Radio concerning a long-running dispute over A&B Energy and a fuel station in Juba.
Eye Radio’s investigation reported allegations that Kenyan-Somali businessmen used influence and political protection to derail enforcement of a court order involving A&B Energy and TICSOM. The report portrayed the dispute as a battle over fuel assets that South Sudanese investor John Lual Bang claims were taken from a company in which he held a substantial interest.
Mukhtar and his associates have now strongly rejected that account, describing the publication as false and damaging.
In the four-page complaint addressed to the Managing Director of the Media Authority, lawyer Daniel Moses Abdalla argues that TICSOM is an independent company with different shareholders and has no connection to A&B Energy’s assets or liabilities.
The complainants specifically challenge allegations that political influence was used to frustrate court orders.
According to the complaint, TICSOM and its shareholders were merely using lawful procedures to protect their business interests and Eye Radio should be required to substantiate allegations of a “political shield.”
The complaint therefore presents a sharply different version of events from the allegations contained in the original investigation.
Lawyers challenge publication of court documents
Mukhtar’s side has also objected to Eye Radio’s publication of court documents connected to the dispute.
The complaint argues that the station improperly published a warrant of arrest concerning TICSOM shareholder Daniel Thel Anyi and alleges that doing so violated provisions of South Sudan’s Criminal Procedure Act.
It further claims that publishing court judgments and orders containing the complainants’ names was unlawful.
The lawyers also accuse Eye Radio of violating their client’s privacy by allegedly publishing a copy of his passport on social media without permission.
Another major complaint concerns the right of reply.
The lawyers allege that Eye Radio failed to obtain responses from TICSOM, Mukhtar and Anyi before publishing the accusations, arguing that this deprived its audience of balanced coverage.
Eye Radio’s original investigation, however, stated that attempts had been made to obtain responses from those implicated in the allegations.
The businessmen are seeking significant financial compensation.
According to their complaint, they want $200,000 for alleged actual damages arising from the publication and another $500,000 for what they describe as non-material reputational harm — bringing their compensation demand to $700,000.
They are also asking the Media Authority to order Eye Radio to publish or broadcast a correction, apology, or both.
More significantly, the complainants have asked the regulator to consider suspending Eye Radio’s broadcasting licence, alongside any other orders deemed appropriate.
Underlying A&B Energy dispute remains
Behind the media confrontation is the much larger commercial dispute over A&B Energy.
Court documents previously reviewed in connection with the case show litigation over a petrol station and allegations that assets associated with A&B Energy were subsequently being used in operations under the TICSOM General Trading name.
The documents also show that an appellate court intervened in 2022 and ordered business activities at TICSOM’s disputed premises stopped as an interim measure.
However, Mukhtar’s side maintains that TICSOM is legally separate from A&B Energy and denies that it took over the latter’s assets.
