Connect with us

Business

Mr President, don’t punish Nigerians again with 15% fuel import tariff

Published

on

Mr President, Nigerians have walked with you through a season of fire. They have endured subsidy removal, foreign exchange shocks, inflation that eats wages before payday, and reforms that have stretched household budgets to their breaking point. They did so because you asked for time — time to rebuild, to reform, to restore.

Now, after this difficult year of sacrifice, the government has confirmed that it will introduce a 15 per cent import duty on petrol and diesel. Mr President, this decision risks turning faith into fatigue. It is not reform, it is relapse — and it could undo the fragile trust Nigerians have placed in your leadership.

According to the leaked memorandum from the State House dated October 10, 2025, the new tariff is framed as a “market-responsive import framework” meant to “safeguard local refining capacity and stabilise the downstream market”. But Nigerians are not fooled by the language of protection when its result is punishment.

This tariff, applied to the cost, insurance, and freight value of imported fuel, will raise the landing cost of petrol by roughly N150–N175 per litre. That means the average pump price could surge toward N970 or more per litre, a direct hit to every household, every transport operator, every food vendor, every generator owner.

This policy claims to “protect local refineries”, but the reality is different: it protects one refinery, the Dangote Refinery, at the expense of an entire nation. The refinery, which currently supplies only about 22 million litres daily, cannot meet Nigeria’s 50 million-litre daily consumption. So, the rest will still come from imports — but now, imports that must bear a punitive 15 per cent tax, ensuring Dangote’s petrol looks cheaper, even when it isn’t.

That is not protectionism; it is manipulation dressed as policy.

See also  Mechanisation critical to attracting youths, empowering women in agriculture – Oluremi Tinubu

Inside that closed circle lies the new “fuel cabal”, a collection of powerful businessmen who have aligned themselves with the refinery to dictate who lifts petrol, who gets access, and at what price. The market, which deregulation was meant to free, is now being redesigned for control.

We are told this tariff will “stabilise the market.” But, as history teaches us, monopolies do not stabilise; they suffocate. In cement, sugar, and now fuel, the pattern remains the same: establish dominance, then block rivals through state-backed regulations. What we are witnessing is not industrial policy — it is industrial capture.

Every naira added to fuel prices ripples across the economy. Transport fares rise by 20–30 per cent. Food prices follow. Inflation deepens. The middle class shrinks further. The poor lose what little dignity inflation has not already taken. And all this, in the name of protecting an investor who built a “state-of-the-art” refinery but cannot yet supply half the country’s needs.

Economic policy is not a courtroom for the powerful to plead for privilege. It is a covenant between the government and the people. And that covenant is broken when policy tilts toward a single enterprise.

When global oil markets faced deregulation, from the United States to South Korea, competition — not tariffs — built resilience. Local refiners had to innovate, not lobby for protection. In the 1980s, American refiners survived the global glut not because of tariffs, but because the market forced them to be efficient, invest, and adapt. South Korea’s chaebols, initially sheltered, became efficient only after the state opened competition and removed protectionist crutches.

If a refinery built with global expertise and billions in investment cannot compete without government shields, then what is it offering Nigerians? The same Nigerians who have already indirectly funded infrastructure through public concessions, waivers, and policy privileges now face a second tax — at the pump.

See also  Nigerians battle shortage of cooking gas as price of 12.5kg cylinder of gas rises to N25,000

The psychological compact between citizens and the state depends on fairness. When people believe that one man or one company is being favoured at their expense, they stop seeing reform as progress. They see it as betrayal.

Mr President, economic theory often hides its human cost. But behind every fuel price increase lies a family’s rationed meal, a trader’s collapsed margin, a farmer’s unaffordable transport. The sociology of hardship is cumulative — people can absorb one reform, perhaps two, but a third breaks faith.

Nigerians are patient, but patience is not infinite. Inflation, currency devaluation, and insecurity already weigh heavily. A 15 per cent tariff on fuel is not a correction — it is cruelty wearing the mask of economic reform.

Those who drafted this proposal insist the tariff is “not revenue-driven” but “corrective.” Yet every indicator shows that the correction benefits one player. The refinery’s own petrol, as of October 20, lands at N929.72 per litre — more expensive than the N802.44 landing cost of imported petrol.

If local refining is truly efficient, why must it be shielded from competition? Why must the public pay a premium to protect inefficiency? The promise of local refining was cheaper fuel, not controlled pricing.

Even more troubling, reports confirm that the Dangote Refinery itself has imported cargoes of petrol in recent weeks, claiming they were “blending components”. If the nation’s premier refinery must import finished products, how then can it claim protection from import competition? Is it a refinery, a blender, or both?

The contradictions are too loud to ignore.

Mr President, Nigerians are not asking for perfection. They are asking for fairness. They are asking that your reform legacy not be hijacked by those who trade influence for policy.

See also  Tinubu retains Shettima as running mate as parties race to meet INEC deadline

You have often spoken of restoring Nigeria’s credibility in the eyes of investors, citizens, and the global community. That credibility depends not on who we protect, but on what we protect — fairness, transparency, and competition.

You fought cabals before; Nigerians remember. They trusted that you would never allow another to rise under your watch, this time cloaked in refinery smoke. The test is here again.

Viable alternatives exist to protect both the refinery and the community: Promote competition instead of protection by permitting multiple refiners, importers, and marketers to operate simultaneously. Increase transparency by making the cost structures and local refiners’ production capacities publicly accessible. Implement a phased approach, applying tariffs only when domestic supply exceeds dependency on imports. Conduct independent assessments, empowering the FCCPC and NMDPRA to verify if the refinery’s pricing aligns with global standards.

Mr President, every leader is tested by the counsel he keeps. Those urging this tariff are not protecting your legacy; they are protecting their leverage. They are not serving Nigeria; they are serving themselves.

If this tariff goes forward, it will not only raise prices but also fuel resentment. It will feed the belief that the government exists to protect the powerful, not the people.

You still have the chance to prove otherwise. The Nigeria you promised, open, competitive, compassionate, begins not with the policies we announce, but with the ones we refuse to endorse when they betray the people’s trust.

Respectfully submitted,

  • Matthew, a policy and governance analyst, writes from Abuja

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

Nigerian states’ revenues rise 93%, but education spending drops — World Bank

Published

on

The World Bank says Nigeria’s 36 states recorded a 93 per cent increase in revenues between 2023 and 2025 but education received a declining share of the sector’s expenditure.

The bank disclosed this in its latest Nigeria Development Update, which examined how increased public revenues have influenced spending priorities across the federation.

The report was made available to the News Agency of Nigeria by the World Bank in Washington D.C.

According to the report, states’ aggregate revenues rose by approximately 93 per cent in real terms, while expenditure increased by 92 per cent during the period.

The report attributed the improvement partly to exchange-rate reforms, petrol subsidy removal, stronger revenue administration and increased allocations from the federation account.

It said states also benefited from refunds, settlement of longstanding federal obligations, intervention funds, and stronger Value Added Tax collections.

However, education’s share of total state expenditure declined from 14.9 per cent in 2021 to 12.1 per cent in 2025, according to the report.

Health expenditure remained broadly stable at approximately seven per cent, while social protection’s share increased from 1.4 per cent to 4.4 per cent.

The bank said capital expenditure increased significantly, accounting for 61 per cent of state spending, compared with 46 per cent previously.

Transport infrastructure recorded the largest increase, alongside substantial spending on housing, agriculture and other economic investments.

The report quoted Mathew Verghis, the World Bank Country Director for Nigeria, as saying that increased revenues provided the opportunity to improve infrastructure, education, healthcare, and water services.

See also  INEC begins nationwide voter registration August 18

He said greater spending efficiency, accountability and improved service delivery were essential to ensuring that additional public resources benefited Nigerians.

The bank acknowledged improvements in states’ fiscal reporting, transparency and internally generated revenue.

It, however, stressed that stronger investment in human capital was necessary to translate economic reforms into sustainable employment and improved living standards.

The report also projected average economic growth of 4.4 per cent between 2026 and 2028, subject to sustained reforms and improved service delivery.

It urged federal and state authorities to ensure that increased public revenues translated into tangible improvements in Nigerians’ welfare.

NAN

Source: punchng.com

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Business

Nigeria promotes investment without building production capacity – UNILAG don

Published

on

A professor of Comparative Political Economy at the University of Lagos, Adelaja Odukoya, has asserted that Nigeria’s economic policies promote investment without sufficiently strengthening domestic production.

Odukoya argued that the contradiction had weakened the country’s productive foundations, with policies encouraging investment and entrepreneurship while failing to create the technological capacity, productive employment and processing industries needed to drive sustainable development.

Odukoya spoke at the maiden edition of the Adeleke University Toyin Falola Annual Lecture, held on Thursday at the Performing Arts Theatre, Adeleke University, Ede.

The lecture had as its theme, “History, Power and Accumulation: Reimagining Africa in the Globally Disorderly Order.”

Odukoya identified several contradictions in the way the Nigerian state manages economic activity.

He said, “The state promotes investment without creating conditions for technological transfer. It encourages entrepreneurship without generating sufficient productive employment.

“It expands primary-product exports while leaving processing capacity undeveloped. It constructs infrastructure without establishing strong linkages with domestic production.”

According to him, the contradictions explain why increased economic activity and accumulation do not necessarily translate into development.

“Accumulation is not synonymous with development,” Odukoya stated.

He argued that genuine development should be measured by the expansion of productive, technological, institutional and human capabilities.

“A country could attract investment, export minerals and agricultural commodities and record economic activity while still failing to build the domestic industries and technological capabilities required for long-term development,” he said.

His argument was echoed by Prof Toyin Falola, who said Africa’s vast natural resources would continue to reinforce dependency unless governments developed the industrial, technological and institutional capacity to transform them into productive power.

See also  Supreme Court fixes April 22 for hearing of PDP appeals, see why

Falola said Africa’s resource problem was not simply one of historical exploitation, but also the continent’s failure to convert its resource endowments into power.

“The issue, however, is not just to repeat the history of exploitation. It is more important to know how Africa turns its great resources into power,” Falola said.

He argued that Africa could not afford to remain a spectator as global economic and geopolitical arrangements continued to change, stressing that resource ownership without the capacity to add value would not guarantee influence.

Falola said the continent required a combination of knowledge, government policy and industrial capacity to change its economic position.

“There must be universities that generate new knowledge; there must be governments that translate this knowledge into policies; there must be industries that add value to the continent’s natural resources,” he said.

He added that Africa needed more than improved infrastructure and stronger economies if it wanted to exercise greater influence in the global system.

“The future of the continent will require more than just better infrastructure, improved economies, and more effective political institutions,” Falola said.

Source: punchng.com

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Business

Import waivers, insecurity end two-year agric trade surplus

Published

on

Import waivers meant to ease hunger and insecurity on farms have led to a deficit, ending a two-year run of surpluses, as Nigeria’s agricultural trade balance swung from a N740.27bn surplus in the first half of 2025 to a N56.13bn deficit in H1 2026, according to agriculture and trade experts.

Recent foreign trade data from the National Bureau of Statistics showed that agricultural exports fell by 33.28 per cent, or N985.14bn, to N1.98tn in H1 2026 from N2.96tn in H1 2025.

Agricultural imports fell by only 8.50 per cent, or N188.74bn, to N2.03tn from N2.22tn over the same period. The gap between the two movements produced a N796.40bn swing in the trade balance.

Nigeria recorded a N365.74bn deficit in H1 2023, when imports of N926.25bn far exceeded exports of N560.51bn. The balance then turned to a N194.92bn surplus in H1 2024 before it widened to N740.27bn in H1 2025.

In separate phone interviews with The PUNCH, Agribusiness experts, including the Chairman of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Agricultural and Allied Group, Tunde Banjoko, explained that recent government policy led to the shift.

Banjoko said, “Some waivers were given for products like palm oil and rice, and the import tariffs were drastically reduced. It became more favourable for people to import than to patronise local producers.”

He said the waivers on food commodities hurt domestic producers, even though lower tariffs on tractors and manufacturing equipment helped them.

According to Banjoko, “The effect is that our imports will rise above our exports. Second, we will discourage local production. Thirdly, we will be reducing employment, because some factories will shut down if they are not able to compete.”

See also  No power, no growth, Dangote warns govt

Banjoko also said weak funding for processors compounds the problem. He said foreign direct investment flows mainly into the capital market rather than into production and processing, so local processors cannot scale.

He urged the Federal Government to speed up the Special Agro-Industrial Processing Zones programme. “We should speed up such projects where we can produce enough for our country and start exporting, not look for shortcuts by reducing prices,” Banjoko added.

Meanwhile, the Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise, Dr Muda Yusuf, identified two major factors behind the deficit. He said the first was the Federal Government’s decision to allow some food imports to tackle runaway inflation.

Yusuf said, “The first is the decision of the government to allow for some food imports as a result of the challenges of food inflation, which at a point was getting almost completely out of hand.”

He added that insecurity worsened the supply gap and cut export capacity, stating, “Insecurity led many farmers to leave their farms. Many of them have ended up in IDP camps, and quite a number have completely abandoned farming.”

He added that farmers cannot export without output. Yusuf said, “You can only export when you have the output.”

Yusuf also said high input costs and falling produce prices have discouraged farming. He said, “Most of these inputs are imported, so the exchange rate situation has seriously affected the cost of inputs, and the prices of produce have gone down.”

He urged the Federal Government to cut the cost of fertiliser, agrochemicals, machinery and improved seedlings. He also called for a minimum guaranteed price for agricultural produce.

See also  US lawmaker urges Trump to take ‘forceful action’ over Plateau attack

Yusuf said, “The government can establish a threshold below which, if prices fall, it will give farmers some compensation. That is the way it is done in many other economies.”

Source: punchng.com

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending