President Bola Tinubu on Tuesday night met with the leadership of the Nigeria Labour Congress amid plans by organised labour to stage a nationwide protest over unresolved demands.

The meeting, which took place at the State House, Abuja, followed growing tensions between the Federal Government and labour unions over issues bordering on workers’ welfare, rising cost of living and the implementation of previously agreed concessions.

Confirming the meeting in a statement issued on Tuesday night, the Special Adviser on Information and Strategy to the President, Bayo Onanuga, disclosed that key stakeholders were in attendance.

“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu met with the leadership of the NLC, along with the chairman of Progressive Governors Forum, Hope Uzodimma, Governor of Edo State, Monday Okpebholo and Governor of Kebbi State, Dr Nasir Idris and the Minister of State Labour, Honourable Nkeiruka Onyejeocha,” the statement partly read.

According to the statement, the Nigeria Labour Congress was led to the meeting by its national leadership.

“The chairman of the NLC, Comrade Joe Ajaero, led the labour leaders to the meeting on Tuesday night at the State House, Abuja,” it added.

PUNCH Online reports that the meeting comes against the backdrop of the NLC’s recent threat to embark on mass protests nationwide over what it described as the Federal Government’s failure to fully address workers’ demands, including relief measures to cushion the impact of economic reforms, wage-related concerns and broader socio-economic hardships faced by Nigerian workers.

Organised labour had accused the government of delaying the implementation of agreements reached in previous engagements, warning that failure to act decisively could trigger industrial unrest and street protests across major cities.

As of the time of filing this report, neither the Federal Government nor the leadership of the NLC had released details of the discussions or the outcome of the meeting.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a Proclamation further restricting entry to the United States for nationals from countries deemed high-risk due to “demonstrated, persistent, and severe deficiencies in screening, vetting, and information-sharing” that threaten U.S. national security and public safety.

Among the 15 additional countries newly subject to partial restrictions is Nigeria.

The announcement comes directly from the White House website, in a fact sheet titled “President Donald J. Trump Further Restricts and Limits the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States”, issued December 16, 2025.

Trump had earlier on October 31 declared Nigeria as a ‘country of particular concern’ in response to allegations of a Christian genocide in the country.

The African Union chief said there was no genocide in Nigeria’s volatile north. And so did ECOWAS addressing the recent surge in terrorist attacks across the region, including Nigeria, while firmly rejecting claims that these acts constitute genocide. Over and over, Tinubu, days ago, again dismissed claims that there is a Christian genocide in the country, insisting that neither Christians nor Muslims are being targeted for killing.

This had prompted series of back and forth and meeting among US Congress and individuals and the Nigerian delegation who have met both in Nigeria and US since. On December 13, a US congressman, Riley Moore, said the US and Nigeria were close to reaching a strategic security agreement aimed at addressing terrorism and sectarian violence in Nigeria.

Days earlier, he stated that the US had concluded its fact-finding mission to Nigeria over alleged genocide and is expected to brief Trump before the end of the month.

However, the latest in the series of ban on Tuesday had the White House described the action as “strengthening national security through common sense restrictions based on data.”

The Proclamation continues full restrictions and entry limitations on nationals from the original 12 high-risk countries under Proclamation 10949: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

It also adds full restrictions and entry limitations on five additional countries: Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, South Sudan, and Syria, along with individuals holding Palestinian-Authority-issued travel documents. Laos and Sierra Leone, previously subject to partial restrictions, now face full restrictions.

Nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Togo, and Venezuela remain under partial restrictions.

The Proclamation adds partial restrictions and entry limitations on 15 additional countries, including Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Tonga, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

The fact sheet notes that “exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories like athletes and diplomats, and individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests” are included.

It also states that family-based immigrant visa carve-outs that carry “demonstrated fraud risks” have been narrowed, while case-by-case waivers remain possible.

In explaining the rationale, the White House fact sheet emphasizes that the Proclamation is necessary “to prevent the entry of foreign nationals about whom the United States lacks sufficient information to assess the risks they pose, garner cooperation from foreign governments, enforce our immigration laws, and advance other important foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism objectives.”

The fact sheet quotes Trump directly: “It is the President’s duty to take action to ensure that those seeking to enter our country will not harm the American people.”

It adds that, after consultations with cabinet officials and assessments based on Executive Order 14161, Proclamation 10949, and country-specific information, “President Trump has determined that the entry of nationals from additional countries must be restricted or limited to protect U.S. national security and public safety interests.”

The restrictions are country-specific “in order to encourage cooperation with the subject countries in recognition of each country’s unique circumstances,” the fact sheet says, highlighting challenges such as “widespread corruption, fraudulent or unreliable civil documents and criminal records, and nonexistent birth-registration systems—systemically preventing accurate vetting.”

Some countries, it notes, “refuse to share passport exemplars or law-enforcement data,” while others allow Citizenship-by-Investment schemes that conceal identity and bypass vetting requirements.

The fact sheet also cites “high visa-overstay rates and refusal to repatriate removable nationals” and the presence of “terrorist, criminal, and extremist activity” in several restricted countries.

The White House fact sheet frames the move as part of President Trump’s ongoing national security agenda: “President Trump is keeping his promise to restore travel restrictions on dangerous countries and to secure our borders.”

It references the Supreme Court’s prior ruling on similar restrictions, noting that the Court found the policy “is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority” and that it is “expressly premised on legitimate purposes”—specifically “preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices.”

Finally, the fact sheet notes that Turkmenistan, which previously faced restrictions, has made progress in cooperation with the U.S., prompting the new Proclamation to lift the ban on its nonimmigrant visas while maintaining the suspension of entry for Turkmen nationals as immigrants.

From June 5 ban to national guard shooting

Two US National Guard soldiers were shot in November near the White House, officials said, and police said a suspect was detained in an extraordinary security drama likely to fuel controversy over President Donald Trump’s crime crackdown.

Reacting, Trump said that he would suspend migration from what the US leader called “third world countries”, a day after an Afghan national allegedly shot two National Guard soldiers in Washington, killing one.

His angry post, which also threatened to reverse “millions” of admissions granted under his predecessor, Joe Biden, marked a new escalation in the anti-migration stance of a second term that has been dominated by Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration announced in the first week of December  that it would review the immigration status of all permanent residents, or “Green Card” holders, from Afghanistan and 18 other countries following the attack.

The review follows a June executive order from President Trump classifying 19 countries as “of Identified Concern.”

The order banned entry for nearly all nationals from 12 countries, including Afghanistan. The full list of these countries include: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

Barely two weeks after in June, Trump commenced plans to place a general visa ban on Nigerians.

According to a report by the Washington Post, an internal memo signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio outlined a proposal that could impose visa restrictions or entry bans on up to 36 additional nations.

These countries were expected to comply with newly established requirements from the U.S. State Department within a 60-day timeframe or face potential travel restrictions.

However, PUNCH Online reports that the timeframe elapsed in August 2025, and it was not until four months later that the new proclamation was issued.

What “Full” and “Partial” Restrictions Mean

• Full bans/suspensions generally bar citizens of specified countries from entering the U.S. and block the issuance of most new immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Exceptions may still exist for lawful permanent residents, diplomats, or specific exempt categories.

• Partial restrictions limit or suspend certain classes of visas (e.g., tourist, student, exchange), impose stricter vetting and shorter visa validity, and often require more rigorous screening before entry is permitted.

The Nigerian oil and gas sector has been thrown into fresh controversy as the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission has declared that it will investigate a petition lodged against the Chief Executive Officer of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, Farouk Ahmed, by the Chairman of Dangote Group, Aliko Dangote.

Dangote, in a petition submitted on December 16, 2025, through his lawyer, Ogwu Onoja (SAN), called on the ICPC to investigate, prosecute, and potentially arrest Ahmed over allegations of corruption and financial impropriety. The petition claims that Ahmed spent more than $7m on the education of his four children in Switzerland, reportedly paid upfront for a six-year period, without any lawful source of income to justify such expenditure.

“That Engr Farouk Ahmed has grossly abused his office contrary to the extant provisions of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers and, by so doing, enmeshed himself in monumental corruption and unlawful spending of public funds running into millions of dollars.

“That Engr. Farouk Ahmed spent, without evidence of lawful means of income, a humongous sum of over $7m of public funds on the education of his four children in different schools in Switzerland for a period of six years upfront,” the petition stated.

Dangote named the children and the Swiss schools they attend, providing the alleged amounts paid for each to enable verification by the ICPC. He further accused Ahmed of diverting public funds for personal gain through the instrumentality of the NMDPRA, an action the billionaire businessman claims has fuelled public outrage and recent protests by civil society groups.

“It is without doubt that the above facts in relation to abuse of office, breach of the Code of Conduct for public officers, corrupt enrichment and embezzlement are gross acts of corrupt practices for which your Commission is statutorily empowered under Section 19 of the ICPC Act to investigate and prosecute,” Dangote said.

Dangote added that successful prosecution under the law could result in a five-year prison sentence without the option of a fine. He alleged that Ahmed had enriched himself with taxpayers’ money meant for public use, diverting it for private purposes, which he said undermined public trust in Nigeria’s petroleum sector.

Reacting to the petition, the ICPC spokesperson, John Odey, confirmed its receipt. He said, “The ICPC wishes to confirm that it received a formal petition today, Tuesday, December 16, 2025, from Alhaji Aliko Dangote through his lawyer. The petition is against the CEO of the NMDPRA, Alhaji Farouk Ahmed. The ICPC wishes to state that the petition will be duly investigated.”

A coalition of 40 lawyers under the aegis of Lawyers in Defence of Democracy and Anti-Corruption has condemned the corruption allegations leveled against Ahmed as baseless, describing Dangote’s claims as a malicious media trial aimed at unjustly portraying Ahmed as guilty without due process.

Addressing a press conference in Abuja, Emeka Okafor, National Coordinator, and Barrister Mohammed Bello, Secretary, said the allegations, including claims of $5m spent on Ahmed’s children’s education in Switzerland, were reckless fabrications unsupported by facts or evidence.

Okafor emphasised that the NMDPRA boss’s regulatory efforts were in the national interest, aimed at dismantling monopolistic practices and promoting investor participation in the petroleum sector.

“This is a clear attempt at a media conviction of a public officer who has not been investigated, charged, or found guilty by any competent authority,” Okafor said.

The lawyers warned that such tactics could discourage local and foreign investors, particularly at a time when President Bola Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda is focused on economic revitalisation. They stressed that any grievances should be addressed through lawful institutional channels rather than media campaigns.

“If indeed there were genuine concerns, the proper course of action would have been to submit a petition to relevant anti-corruption agencies for investigation, not a trial by media,” said Barrister Bello.

Students, CSOs react

The National Association of Nigerian Students also decried what it described as a media smear campaign against Ahmed. In a statement signed jointly by Samson Ajasa and Mr Humphrey Jonathan, NANS stressed that NMDPRA is a statutory regulatory body that must never be coerced, intimidated, or blackmailed to serve individual or corporate interests.

NANS noted that while it had supported the Dangote Refinery during operational challenges, it drew a firm line against character assassination and reputational attacks against credible public servants.

“The recent actions and allegations directed at Farouk Ahmed, a man of proven integrity, professionalism, and service to the nation, are totally unacceptable to Nigerian students and civil society groups,” the statement read.

NANS called on Dangote Refinery to engage regulatory bodies and government institutions through established legal and administrative frameworks instead of media campaigns that could undermine public confidence and national stability.

The students’ association commended Ahmed and the NMDPRA for transparency in publishing regulatory reports and urged collaboration between regulators and investors to support national development.

Over 50 civil society organisations also dismissed Dangote’s allegations as false, unfounded, and unsupported by evidence. Speaking on behalf of the coalition, Comrade Ibrahim Bello, National Coordinator of the Centre for Fiscal Transparency and Public Integrity, said the organisations had conducted internal reviews and found no basis for the corruption claims against Ahmed.

They described the allegations as a calculated attempt to discredit NMDPRA’s leadership over its anti-monopoly stance in Nigeria’s midstream and downstream petroleum sector.

PETROAN backs Farouk

The Petroleum Products Retail Outlets Owners Association of Nigeria criticised Dangote’s public allegations against Ahmed, declaring strong support for the NMDPRA leadership.

In a statement signed by Dr Joseph Obele, National Public Relations Officer, PETROAN called on President Tinubu to intervene in what it described as a deepening cold war in the downstream sector, warning that public attacks on regulators could damage investor confidence.

Dr Billy Gillis-Harry, PETROAN National President, said, “The ongoing allegations and verbal attacks directed at the leadership of the NMDPRA by the President of Dangote Group are capable of discouraging potential foreign investors and eroding confidence in Nigeria’s regulatory institutions.”

PETROAN passed a vote of confidence in Ahmed’s management, citing the authority’s reforms, regulatory clarity, and improvements in operational efficiency, transparency, and competition in the downstream sector. The association condemned Dangote’s negative public statements about Nigeria’s national refineries, warning that such comments could undermine investor confidence.

The retailers’ body also stressed that public announcements of petrol prices by any individual or organisation violated the Petroleum Industry Act, Section 205(1), which provides that wholesale and retail prices should be determined by free market conditions with limited regulatory oversight.

The association raised concerns over unresolved labour disputes involving the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria with the Dangote Refinery. PETROAN warned that prolonged conflicts could lead to supply disruptions, artificial scarcity, price instability, and weakened investor confidence.

“The current dirty price war is already causing collateral damage to all parties involved. Most of the aggressive price crashes appear designed to frustrate importers and are often executed below cost. This is unsustainable and harmful to the long-term stability of the downstream sector,” the statement added.

The association urged President Tinubu to intervene decisively to resolve the disputes, promote dialogue, uphold the Petroleum Industry Act, and restore stability in the downstream petroleum sector.

At a press briefing at the Dangote Petroleum Refinery in Lekki, Lagos, on Sunday, Dangote called for a full investigation into the source of funds used by Ahmed, urging him to appear before the Code of Conduct Tribunal to offer a public explanation.

“I’ve actually had people making complaints about a regulator who has actually put his children in secondary school. And that secondary school education, which is six years, four of them cost Nigeria $5m. I mean, you cannot imagine somebody paying $5m for educating four children,” Dangote said.

Dangote also petitioned the ICPC to probe Ahmed’s financial activities, while alleging that the regulator’s actions amounted to economic sabotage that could undermine public trust and investor confidence.

Ahmed and the NMDPRA had previously dismissed similar claims in July 2025, when another group accused the CEO of spending over $5.5m on foreign education for his children. At that time, the authority described the allegations as orchestrated smear campaigns designed to discredit its leadership and inconsistent with the facts.

Since the commencement of phased operations at the Dangote Refinery, tensions between the refinery and NMDPRA have been marked by disagreements over import licences, crude supply access, pricing transparency, and the broader role of domestic refineries in meeting Nigeria’s fuel demand.

The controversy has highlighted the tensions inherent in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector, where regulatory reforms, investor interests, and the operations of domestic refineries intersect.

While Dangote’s petition has triggered formal investigation by the ICPC, legal experts, civil society groups, students, and industry stakeholders have emphasised due process, the presumption of innocence, and the need for collaborative engagement to ensure the sector remains stable, competitive, and attractive to investors.

With PETROAN, NANS, lawyers, and civil society groups backing Ahmed, the matter is expected to test the balance between regulatory authority and private sector interests, underscoring the delicate interplay of governance, compliance, and industrial growth in Nigeria’s vital oil and gas industry.