Business

Oil revenue row: Presidency defends Tinubu as legal titans split over Executive Order

Published

4 months ago

February 24, 2026

The Presidency has defended President Bola Tinubu’s Executive Order, which halted revenue deductions by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and other agencies.

It said the Petroleum Industry Act violates and is not superior to the Nigerian Constitution.

The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, stated that criticism of the directive by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria demonstrated a lack of understanding of the constitutional supremacy over ordinary legislation.

“PENGASSAN is focusing on PIA alone. The President’s action is based on the Nigerian Constitution, which PIA violates in allowing the deductions that the President has now stopped. PIA is not superior to our constitution,” Onanuga stated in a response to inquiries by The PUNCH on Monday.

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria had on Friday opposed the presidential fiat, accusing the President of violating the PIA with his revenue retention order.

But the presidential spokesman insisted the union made a “knee-jerk reaction” without studying the constitutional provisions underpinning the directive.

“PENGASSAN should have read the constitution before making its knee-jerk reaction,” he said.

Onanuga explained that the Executive Order derives its authority from section 5 of the 1999 Constitution, which vests executive powers of the Federation in the President, including the maintenance of the Constitution and implementation of federal laws.

He said the directive is further anchored on section 44(3) of the Constitution, which vests ownership, control, and derivative rights in all minerals, mineral oils, and natural gas in Nigeria in the Government of the Federation.

According to the presidential aide, the Executive Order seeks to restore constitutional revenue entitlements of the Federal, State, and Local Governments, which were “taken away in 2021 by the Petroleum Industry Act.”

“The PIA created structural and legal channels through which substantial Federation revenues are lost through deductions, sundry charges, and fees,” Onanuga stated.

But the union argued that the directive would cripple the company’s ability to fund operations and fulfil its statutory obligations, including contributions to the Frontier Exploration Fund, critical for hydrocarbon exploration in 2026.

The PUNCH reported that the directive has sparked deep concerns within the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, and the board and management of the Midstream and Downstream Gas Infrastructure Fund.

However, the Presidency maintained that the order is necessary to plug revenue leakages and ensure that funds constitutionally due to all tiers of government are not diverted through statutory deductions.

Also, Presidential media aide Sunday Dare defended the Order in a post on X, stating that section 80(1) of the Constitution mandates that all revenues raised or received by the Federation must be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

He said Executive Order 9 does not create new law or amend the PIA but operationalises constitutional provisions by directing the remittance of petroleum revenues — including royalties, taxes, profit oil and gas, penalties, and related receipts — into constitutionally recognised accounts.

“EO9 does not intrude into legislative competence,” Dare stated, adding that if its validity is disputed, the Judiciary remains the proper forum.

Pending any judicial determination, he said, the Executive is duty-bound to protect Federation revenues and uphold constitutional supremacy.

The PIA, signed into law in August 2021 by former President Muhammadu Buhari, granted NNPCL significant operational and financial autonomy, including the right to retain revenues for reinvestment before remitting proceeds to the Federation Account.

Section 54 of the Act specifically exempts NNPCL from the Fiscal Responsibility Act and allows it to operate on commercial terms without certain government financial regulations.

However, protests have continued o mount over the executive order, with a cross-section of senior advocates faulting the President’s decision.

The senior lawyers raised constitutional concerns over the legality of Executive Order 9, arguing that President Tinubu lacks the authority to override or set aside an Act of the National Assembly through an executive instrument.

Eight SANs, including Lekan Ojo, Adeola Adedipe, Paul Obi, Wale Balogun, Dr Wahab Shittu, Dr Abiodun Layonu, Isiaka Olagunju and Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, asserted the President cannot set aside an Act of the National Assembly through an Executive Order, insisting that only the judiciary can declare a law unconstitutional.

Speaking in a separate interview with The PUNCH on Monday, President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Afam Osigwe (SAN), maintained that while executive orders may guide administrative actions, they cannot supplant or contradict existing laws duly enacted by the National Assembly.

Osigwe was emphatic in his position that the President has no powers to modify the law. ‘’No, he does not. A president cannot, by executive order, modify or alter a law. A president doesn’t have the power.”

Ojo similarly stressed that the Petroleum Industry Act is an Act of the National Assembly, “hence the President cannot by any form of executive order, amend, alter or abrogate or nullify any provisions of that act.”

Speaking further, he explained that the executive powers of the President are as prescribed by law and the Constitution, and where there is no enabling power or Act, the President does not have any power.

“Executive order is like instruments to give effect to executive decisions and laws. Where the law has prescribed a particular thing, the President cannot, by executive order, do the opposite. So, the President does not have the power and cannot use an executive order to amend provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act,” Ojo said.

He noted that it is only the National Assembly that can amend or repeal the Act and that if there are justifiable reasons, assuming there are, as to why certain sections of that Act should be nullified or should not be followed for whatever reasons, the best thing is for the National Assembly to take necessary steps towards effecting necessary amendments to the Act.

‘’That is the only legitimate way by which it can be done. Not via an executive order,” he stressed.

He added, “In other words, an amendment to any act of the National Assembly cannot be effected via an executive order. As a matter of fact, the court itself does not have the power to amend. That will amount to judicial legislation.”

He noted that, as such, having executive legislation is not allowed.

“We can also not have executive legislation. Neither judicial legislation nor executive legislation is permitted under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. So any attempt to amend an executive order is nothing but a nullity, and it is to that extent ineffective. It is an exercise in futility,” Ojo said.

Also, Adedipe explained that executive orders are limited to administrative convenience and cannot replace the constitutional law-making process.

“Executive Orders help with functions and administrative convenience. Law making process is set out in the Constitution, and the same cannot be substituted by an executive fiat,” Adedipe said.

“Any Executive Order that derogates from administrative implementation of an existing law is likely to be annulled when challenged in court.”

On his part, Obi flatly rejected the notion that a president could overreach the legislature through executive directives.

“No, the president does not have the power to overrule or overreach an Act of Parliament through executive orders. No,” he said.

He further noted that the Constitution clearly separates the powers of the executive, legislature and judiciary.

“He is the president in the first place because the constitution gives him powers to act as the head of the executive after the election.

‘’The parliament, under the same constitution, gives them powers to make laws and even gives them powers to override a presidential assent to a bill. The same way it gives the judiciary judicial powers, in section six of the constitution,” he argued.

He further elaborated on the legislative process, noting that where a president withholds assent to a bill, the National Assembly retains the power to override that decision.

He added that the only lawful route open to a president dissatisfied with an existing Act is to initiate an amendment or propose a new law.

“What he can do is either to sponsor a bill to amend that act or sponsor a fresh executive bill for a new law that would repeal the one already made. As long as that act of parliament is valid and is extant and in operation. Presidential executive orders cannot override an act of the national assembly.’’

Drawing a parallel with the United States, Obi cited a recent decision of the US Supreme Court, which nullified President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs.

Balogun underscored the supremacy of substantive legislation over subsidiary instruments, stressing that executive orders must derive their authority from existing laws or the Constitution.

“It is without any doubt that an inferior and or subsidiary legislation cannot override a substantive Act of Parliament. An Executive Order is indeed a directive exercisable by the Executive e.g. the President, which, however, must be traceable to the law at all times,” Balogun said.

Shittu, in a statement titled, ‘’Scope of Executive Power,’ pointed out that the issue raises “profound constitutional questions regarding the scope and limits of executive power,” particularly in relation to constitutional supremacy, separation of powers and judicial review.

Citing section 1(1) of the Constitution, he noted that the Constitution is supreme and binding on all authorities and persons throughout the country.

He added that while section 1(3) provides that any law inconsistent with the Constitution shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency, the determination of such inconsistency does not lie with the executive.

“Although the Constitution declares inconsistent laws void, the determination of such inconsistency is not left to the subjective discretion of the executive,” he said. “It is a matter that falls within the constitutional competence of the judiciary.”

Shittu stressed that the doctrine of separation of powers clearly delineates responsibilities among the three arms of government.

He explained that section 4 of the Constitution vests legislative powers in the National Assembly, while section 5 vests executive powers in the President for the “execution and maintenance” of the Constitution and laws made by the National Assembly.

“The operative words are ‘execution and maintenance,’” he said. “The President’s constitutional role is to implement and enforce laws, not to alter, suspend or nullify them.”

According to him, executive power is expressly made subject to the provisions of the Constitution and laws enacted by the National Assembly, making it subordinate to legislative authority within the constitutional framework.

Shittu described Executive Orders as administrative instruments used to direct the operations of the executive branch and facilitate the implementation of laws and policies. However, he maintained that they do not possess legislative character.

“They are inherently subordinate instruments and cannot override, amend or repeal provisions of an Act of the National Assembly,” he said. “Their purpose is to facilitate implementation, not to create or invalidate substantive law.”

He further argued that the constitutional hierarchy of norms places the Constitution at the apex, followed by Acts of the National Assembly, and then subsidiary legislation and executive instruments.

“Where an Executive Order conflicts with a valid Act of the National Assembly, the Act prevails,” Shittu stated. “Allowing Executive Orders to override Acts would effectively transfer legislative authority to the Executive and undermine democratic governance.”

Relying on judicial authorities, Shittu cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney-General of the Federation v. Abubakar, where the court held that the President must act strictly within constitutional limits.

He also referenced Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation, in which the apex court reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the duty of all arms of government to operate within their assigned constitutional boundaries.

On the question of whether the President can unilaterally set aside provisions of a duly enacted law on grounds of alleged constitutional inconsistency, Shittu was unequivocal.

“The power to determine constitutional validity is vested exclusively in the judiciary,” he said.

He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in INEC v. Musa, where the court struck down provisions of the Electoral Act that were inconsistent with the Constitution, affirming that only the courts can declare a law unconstitutional.

Similarly, he referred to Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu, where the Supreme Court warned against executive lawlessness and stressed that government must operate within the confines of the law.

“These authorities establish beyond doubt that the President cannot unilaterally suspend, invalidate or set aside provisions of a duly enacted law,” Shittu said.

He added that where the executive believes a statutory provision violates the Constitution, “the appropriate course of action is to challenge the provision in court and seek a declaratory judgment.”

“Until a competent court declares the provision unconstitutional, it remains valid and binding on all persons and authorities, including the President,” he stated.

Shittu warned that permitting the Executive to invalidate statutory provisions without judicial pronouncement would erode the system of checks and balances.

“It would effectively concentrate legislative, executive and judicial powers in one office,” he said. “Such concentration of power would be incompatible with democratic governance and would undermine the rule of law.”

He concluded that under the 1999 Constitution, “an Executive Order cannot override or supersede an Act of the National Assembly,” adding that the constitutional arrangement preserves the supremacy of the Constitution, maintains separation of powers and safeguards the rule of law.

Similarly, Dr Layonu maintained that an Executive Order cannot legally supersede an Act of Parliament.

“An Executive Order is never meant to contradict the law but to further it and make the law workable.”

According to him, any Executive Order that contradicts an existing statute would be invalid.

“The moment an Executive Order contradicts the law, it becomes null and void to the extent of the inconsistency with the law,” he stated.

Layonu further stressed that the Executive cannot unilaterally set aside a duly enacted law on grounds of alleged constitutional inconsistency.

“The Executive as a body cannot constitutionally set aside provisions of a duly enacted law on unilaterally alleged grounds of constitutional inconsistency,” he said.

He noted that the President would ordinarily have assented to the law before it came into force.

“Remember the President assented to the law before it became law, unless in a situation where the Executive had declined assent and that decision was overridden by the National Assembly,” Layonu added.

Layonu emphasised that once a law has been duly passed and has come into force, only the Judiciary has the authority to pronounce on its constitutionality.

“Once a law is duly passed, it is only the Judiciary that can declare it unconstitutional,” he said.

The Chairman of Egbe Amofin Oodua, Isiaka Olagunju (SAN), said the Constitution clearly separates governmental powers among the three arms- the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.

He explained that legislative powers are vested in the National Assembly, while executive powers are vested in the President, Vice President and Ministers, but do not extend to lawmaking.

Olagunju added that where the President believes a law is inconsistent with the Constitution, the proper course is to seek judicial interpretation or legislative amendment.

“What he ought to do is to approach the court for judicial interpretation of the law and for the setting aside of that law on the ground of inconsistency,” he said. “Or draw the attention of the National Assembly to the alleged inconsistent provision and seek its amendment.”

Prof. Sam Erugo, SAN, cautioned that the Presidency cannot rely on an Executive Order to override provisions of the PIA, even when it perceives it as inconsistent with the Constitution.

“Any statutory provision inconsistent with the Constitution is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency. It cannot be remedied or amended by Executive Order. An Executive Order cannot take the place of legislation, which is the exclusive reserve of the legislature in a constitutional democracy such as we pretend to be running.”

But Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo (SAN) observed that Executive Order 9, issued by the Presidency, is defensible as an assertion of constitutional supremacy in the administration of petroleum revenues and does not override or repeal the Petroleum Industry Act.

Reacting to the ongoing debate over the scope of executive powers under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Tayo-Oyetibo said the controversy must be understood within the proper constitutional framework.

“The starting point is section 1(1) and (3) of the Constitution: the Constitution is supreme, and any law inconsistent with it is void to the extent of the inconsistency,” he said.

“An Act of the National Assembly derives its validity from the Constitution and cannot stand above it,” Tayo-Oyetibo said.

He argued that it is therefore inaccurate to frame the issue as whether an Executive Order can “override” an Act of the National Assembly. “An Executive Order cannot repeal or amend an Act; only the legislature can do that,” Tayo-Oyetibo said.

However, he noted that where the Executive forms a considered view, especially on the advice of the Attorney-General of the Federation, that certain statutory provisions conflict with the Constitution, “the President is constitutionally bound to align executive conduct with the Constitution, not with the inconsistent statute.”

According to the senior lawyer, section 5(1) of the Constitution vests executive powers in the President for the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and all laws.

“That provision does not reduce the President to a mechanical enforcer of every statutory text regardless of constitutional implications,” he said. “His oath of office requires him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

He emphasised that if, in the course of administering the PIA, constitutional concerns arise, particularly relating to section 162 and the mandatory structure of the Federation Account, the President cannot knowingly supervise an unconstitutional fiscal arrangement pending future litigation.

“The supremacy clause in section 1(3) operates automatically. Courts declare inconsistency, which exists ab initio; they do not create it,” he said.

“While judicial pronouncement is final and authoritative, prior judicial validation is not a constitutional precondition for executive fidelity to the Constitution. To insist otherwise would mean the President must implement what he reasonably believes to be unconstitutional until a court declares otherwise. That would invert the logic of constitutional governance,” he added.

Tayo-Oyetibo clarified that Executive Order 9 does not repeal the Petroleum Industry Act and does not purport to legislate.

“Rather, it directs executive agencies on how to administer petroleum revenues in a manner the President considers consistent with constitutional requirements,” he said. “I think that is permissible within the framework of Section 5 of the Constitution.”

He described the Order as an effort to prevent constitutional breaches in the management of public revenues, adding that those who hold a different view remain free to seek judicial interpretation.

Members of the Organised Private Sector have said that Executive Order No.9 of 2026 will not scare investors away but will instead enhance transparency and reposition the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited for greater efficiency and growth.

In separate telephone interviews with The PUNCH, private sector leaders played down fears of investor flight, describing the administration’s decision as a step towards improved transparency and policy consistency.

The Director-General of the Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association, Adewale Oyerinde, said the order aligns with global investor expectations.

He said, “The Executive Order will, among other things, enhance transparency and operational integrity of the revenue accrued. If there’s one thing that foreign investors desire, it is transparency and predictability of any process. In our opinion, the Executive Order is in the right order.”

Oyerinde maintained that clarity in revenue management would strengthen investor confidence rather than weaken it.

“If there’s one thing that foreign investors desire, it is transparency and predictability of any process,” NECA’s DG remarked. “In our opinion, the Executive Order is in the right order.”

Similarly, President of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Leye Kupoluyi, called for calm among the business community, stressing that honesty and transparency remain critical to attracting and retaining international investors.

“I don’t think this executive order will scare investors away because, like every other operational thing, honesty and transparency are the key words there. In a country, as I’ve seen, that’s been spelt out by the president, it’s honestly implemented as the executive order is. That is exactly what the international community expected,” Kupoluyi said.

He added, “They actually want transparency and consistency of policy. That is what it is. We know our experience in the recent past, when the revenue went to NNPC, was not fully accounted for. We noticed further in the last 10 or 15 years, when they are asked to disclose what is coming in, they have not been clear.”

Kupoluyi described the development as largely an internal restructuring between the government and its oil company and not a threat to joint venture partners or private investors.

“Since for joint ventures, it does not affect them. I think this is an internal thing between the government and NNPC, which is an organ created by the government,” he said.

On concerns that the directive could affect the proposed public listing of the oil firm, Kupoluyi said the order could, in fact, strengthen its corporate structure.

“I think it will even give NNPC a more robust way of being able to organise itself as a private entity. Presently, there are so many business opportunities for NNPC, which we all know. It’s quite big, and they are very robust, and it’s an opportunity,” Kupoluyi said.

He added, “I think it will be a better challenge for NNPC to go to a greater height. They have a lot of similar organisations that they can learn from. To me, it is an opportunity for NNPC to move to a greater height.”

The OPS leaders insisted that consistent implementation of the order, alongside reforms under the Petroleum Industry Act, would reinforce Nigeria’s commitment to transparency and strengthen investor confidence in the oil and gas sector.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Post Views: 244

Business

Nigerians spend N50bn on US visa applications

Published

15 hours ago

June 9, 2026

Newsbreak365_Admin

Nigerians spent more than N50bn on US visa applications between 2023 and 2024, despite a sharp decline in approvals as Washington tightened immigration controls and increased scrutiny of applicants.

An analysis of the Intelpoint report, using data from the US Department of State, shows that 201,200 non-immigrant visas were issued to Nigerians between 2023 and 2024. At a standard application fee of $185 per applicant, Nigerians spent approximately $37.2m, equivalent to N50.7bn at an average exchange rate of N1,360 to the dollar.

Visa issuances declined by about 23 per cent, falling to 87,300 in 2024 from 113,900 in 2023, a reduction of 26,600 visas. The PUNCH could not obtain comparable figures for 2025 at the time of reporting.

Business and tourism travel dominated approvals in 2024, with B1/B2 visas accounting for 83 per cent of total issuances, while student visas (F1) represented about seven per cent. Exchange visitor visas (J1) and other temporary categories made up the remainder.

Africa’s most populous nation remained a significant source market for the United States, accounting for about 0.8 per cent of global non-immigrant visa issuances in 2024, the data showed.

Former President of the National Association of Nigeria Travel Agencies, Susan Akporiaye, said Nigerians’ travel behaviour is driven by more than economic conditions, noting a strong cultural inclination toward mobility.

“People would say it’s because of the economy, but I share a different view. Nigerians are generally migrants; they love travelling.

We are like the Chinese of Africa,” Akporiaye told The PUNCH.

The executive argued that most Nigerians who travel abroad return home, and only a small proportion remain outside the country permanently. “There is so much noise of Nigerians staying back. The ones who travel and return are far more than those who stay back. It’s not up to 10 per cent that don’t return,” she stated.

The decline in visa issuances comes amid a series of policy changes introduced after Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, which have gradually tightened requirements for Nigerian applicants.

In July 2025, the US Department of State announced that most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas issued to Nigerian citizens would be restricted to single-entry permits valid for three months, with existing visas unaffected.

In August, applicants were required to disclose all social media usernames used over the previous five years on DS-160 forms, with officials warning that omissions could lead to visa denial or ineligibility.

Akporiaye also noted that travel demand cuts across income levels, from affluent individuals to ordinary citizens travelling for social events. “Nigerians like to explore. We travel for birthdays, weddings, and other ceremonies. I’m not talking about people like Dangote or Otedola, but ordinary Nigerians you don’t even know,” she said.

The expert, however, acknowledged that demand for US travel has softened relative to other destinations, citing operational and policy-related constraints.

“The demand has reduced for some destinations like the US, and it’s becoming worse now. Conditional requirements and operational changes at the US Embassy in Abuja have made access more difficult, including the consolidation of services in Lagos,” she stated.

“There are stories about visas being cancelled or Nigerians getting deported, and that makes people a bit sceptical. But other destinations are still booming.”

Further tightening followed in December 2025, when the US Mission in Nigeria said Washington expanded travel restrictions to include partial limitations on Nigeria and five other countries, effective January 1, 2026.

An executive at Travel and Tours Limited, Maureen Chimaobi, said securing a US visa has become increasingly difficult over the past year, with many first-time applicants facing steep odds despite completing all required procedures.

“Last year, getting a US visa drastically reduced, especially if you are a first-time traveller or first-time applicant. It’s almost a no-go area,” Chimaobi told our correspondent.

She noted that applicants continue to pay visa fees, schedule appointments and attend interviews, but approvals have become far less predictable. “You pay your visa fee, book your appointment and go for submission. Most of the time, they don’t give it,” the agent said.

The trend reflects growing concerns among travel operators about declining approval rates for Nigerian applicants, even as demand for overseas travel remains strong. Chimaobi said rejection levels have remained high throughout the period under review, particularly for individuals with limited international travel history.

The tougher environment is also influencing destination choices. More Nigerians are turning to countries where visa approvals are perceived to be more attainable, provided applicants can demonstrate sufficient financial capacity and present strong documentation.

“I think most countries still offer a 70 to 80 per cent chance of getting a visa, depending on the quality of your documents and your financial status,” Chimaobi revealed.

She identified the United Kingdom as one of the destinations with relatively stronger approval prospects, although she cautioned that British authorities have also hardened their assessment processes in recent months.

France and other countries within the Schengen area, once considered more accessible to Nigerian travellers, have become increasingly selective, especially toward first-time applicants, she added.

“Before now, France used to issue visas more easily, but most Schengen countries have become difficult over time, particularly for first-time travellers,” Chimaobi said.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Post Views: 82

Business

Petrol imports crash by N2tn to N87bn; see why

Published

15 hours ago

June 9, 2026

Newsbreak365_Admin

Nigeria’s spending on the importation of Premium Motor Spirit, popularly known as petrol, plunged by over 96 per cent in the first quarter of 2026, marking a dramatic shift in the country’s fuel supply landscape and signaling the growing impact of local refining capacity.

Latest foreign trade statistics released by the National Bureau of Statistics on Monday showed that only N87.401bn was spent on the importation of Motor Spirit Ordinary, the official trade classification for petrol, between January and March 2026.

The figure represents a sharp decline of N2.184tn, or 96.15 per cent, compared to the N2.271tn spent on petrol imports during the corresponding period of 2025. The development is particularly significant as petrol, which had consistently ranked among Nigeria’s most imported commodities for years, was completely absent from the list of the country’s top traded products in the first quarter of 2026.

An analysis of the NBS data by our correspondent showed that petrol did not feature among the top 19 traded products with the rest of the world, Africa, or West Africa during the review period.

Instead, the leading traded products included crude petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, gas oil, durum wheat, machines for reception, conversion and transmission of data, used vehicles, motorcycles, agricultural seeders, medicaments, aircraft parts, butanes, petroleum bitumen, sugar cane, herbicides and fuel additives.

The report read, “The value of total imports stood at N13,619.33bn in the first quarter of 2026, representing a 18.17 per cent decrease from the value recorded in the corresponding quarter of 2025 (N16,644.42bn) and a 21.05 per cent decrease compared to the value recorded in Q4 2025 (N17,250.93bn).

“Analysis of Nigeria’s import trade reveals that China remained the leading source of imports in the first quarter of 2026, followed by the United States of America, India, Germany, and the United Arab Emirates. The most imported commodities during the quarter were petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals (crude), gas oil, durum wheat, machines for the reception, conversion, and transmission of voice, images, or data, and used vehicles with diesel or semi-diesel engines.

“The value of other oil products imported in Q1 2026 stood at N748.10bn, reflecting an 85.05 per cent decrease from N5,005.22bn in Q1 2025 and an 81.38 per cent decrease from N4,018.31bn recorded in Q4 2025.”

The latest import figure is also the lowest quarterly amount spent on petrol imports since at least 2022, according to available trade records reviewed by our correspondent.

Data from previous years showed that Nigeria spent N2.694tn on petrol imports in the first quarter of 2022. The import bill declined by N661bn, or 24.5 per cent, to N2.033tn in the corresponding period of 2023.

However, petrol import spending surged by N1.780tn in 2024 to N3.813tn, representing an increase of 87.6 per cent year-on-year. The figure later dropped by N1.542tn, or 40.4 per cent, to N2.271tn in the first quarter of 2025 before plunging by a massive N2.184tn, or 96.15 per cent, to N87.401bn in the first quarter of 2026.

The latest figure means that for every N100 spent on petrol imports in the first quarter of 2025, only about N4 was spent during the same period in 2026. The NBS data also highlighted the changing structure of Nigeria’s petrol import trade profile over the years.

According to the report, the total trade value involving the petroleum product stood at N7.705tn in 2022. This declined marginally by N194bn, or 2.5 per cent, to N7.511tn in 2023.

Trade value, however, more than doubled in 2024, rising by N7.907tn, or 105.3 per cent, to N15.418tn, the highest level during the period under review. The figure subsequently fell by N5.045tn, or 32.7 per cent, to N10.373tn in 2025, reflecting changing trade dynamics in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector.

The PUNCH reports that the sharp reduction in petrol imports reflects the increasing contribution of domestic refining facilities to fuel supply, reducing Nigeria’s dependence on foreign suppliers and helping conserve foreign exchange.

For decades, Nigeria relied heavily on imported petrol despite being Africa’s largest crude oil producer, owing largely to the poor performance of state-owned refineries and inadequate domestic refining capacity.

The trend began to change following investments in local refining and the gradual increase in output from domestic refineries, which have reduced the need for large-scale fuel imports.

The sharp decline in petrol imports in the first quarter of 2026 comes amid growing domestic refining capacity, particularly from the operations of the Dangote Petroleum Refinery, which began supplying petrol to the Nigerian market in 2024.

For decades, Nigeria relied heavily on imported Premium Motor Spirit despite being Africa’s largest crude oil producer. The country’s state-owned refineries operated far below capacity for years, forcing marketers and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company to spend trillions of naira annually importing fuel to meet domestic demand.

The commissioning of the 650,000 barrels-per-day refinery in Lekki, Lagos, marked a turning point in the downstream petroleum sector. Since commencing petrol production, the refinery has steadily increased output, supplying marketers, industrial users and fuel distributors across the country.

In January, the Nigerian Midstream Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority reported that Dangote refinery supplied an average of 40.1 million litres of petrol daily, accounting for 61.78 per cent of Nigeria’s petrol supply. Imported fuel contributed 24.8 million litres per day during the month.

It increased significantly in February as imports collapsed. The refinery supplied about 36.5 million litres per day, while imports dropped to roughly 3.1 million litres per day, meaning locally refined fuel accounted for more than 92 per cent of national supply.

According to the NMDPRA March fact sheet, Dangote remained the sole domestic supplier of petrol, supplying 34.2 million litres per day. Imports rose slightly to 5.9 million litres daily, bringing total supply to about 40.1 million litres per day.

Supply rebounded strongly in April. Dangote supplied 40.7 million litres per day to the domestic market, while imports declined further to 3.7 million litres daily. Total petrol supply stood at 44.4 million litres per day, giving the refinery a market share of approximately 92 per cent of locally consumed fuel and about 80–92 per cent of overall supply, depending on the methodology used.

The disappearance of petrol from the list of top imported products is expected to strengthen arguments that local refining is beginning to alter Nigeria’s trade patterns, lower import dependence and reshape the country’s foreign exchange requirements.

The sustained reductions in fuel imports could improve Nigeria’s trade balance, reduce pressure on the naira and retain more value within the domestic economy, provided local production continues to meet demand.

The first-quarter data therefore represents one of the clearest indications yet of a major shift in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector, with petrol imports falling to levels not seen in more than four years.

Post Views: 28

Business

Nigerian workers deserve a living wage; read details

Published

2 days ago

June 8, 2026

Newsbreak365_Admin

THIS is a debate that never goes away for too long: what is due to Nigerian workers? The renewed agitation over workers’ wages, triggered by a fresh Nigeria Governors’ Forum proposal to raise the national minimum wage to N100,000 per month, only confirms that the country is trapped in an endless cycle of wage adjustments that inflation quickly renders meaningless.

This means that the issue is not just about the size of the minimum wage. Rather, it is about whether Nigerian workers can afford to live with dignity.

That is why the conversation must shift from a statutory minimum wage to a genuine living-wage regime – and a stable economy.

The proposal by the Chairman of the NGF, Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq, has already been rejected by organised labour.

The Nigeria Labour Congress, through its spokesman, Benson Upah, dismissed N100,000 as grossly inadequate and argued that, given current realities, a realistic wage would be closer to N1 million per month!

The Federal Workers Forum also condemned the proposal as a “Greek gift,” insisting that it bears little relationship to prevailing economic conditions.

While the NLC’s N1 million demand may appear excessive to many, the underlying argument deserves serious attention.

The current N70,000 minimum wage approved in July 2024 has already been overtaken by inflation. Like every previous wage increase in Nigeria’s history, its real value has been rapidly eroded.

The country’s minimum wage trajectory elucidates this. It rose from N18,000 in 2011 to N30,000 in 2019 and then to N70,000 in 2024. Yet each increase was followed by soaring inflation that wiped out most of the gains.

It is alleged that some states have yet to implement the minimum wage for grassroots workers, local government employees and primary school teachers.

Dataphyte estimates that the real value of the previous N30,000 wage had collapsed to barely N11,708 by mid-2024. The current N70,000 wage is clearly following the same path.

The CBN reported that workers lost N2.79 trillion in purchasing power in 2024 alone due to inflation. That explains why workers who celebrated the 133 per cent wage increase in 2024 now find themselves struggling to survive less than two years later.

Nothing illustrates the crisis more vividly than the National Bureau of Statistics and Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition Cost of a Healthy Diet data.

According to an analysis by The Whistler, a healthy diet for one adult now costs an average of N1,541 per day or N46,230 per month, excluding meal preparation costs.

This means that a worker earning N70,000 is left with just N23,770 after feeding only himself.

For an average Nigerian household of 5.06 persons, the monthly cost of a healthy diet rises to N233,923 — equivalent to 334 per cent of the current minimum wage.

In other words, the average worker cannot afford the minimum nutritional requirements recommended by global health standards.

Even the governors’ proposed N100,000 wage would still leave most families far below the subsistence level. It is therefore difficult to dispute labour’s argument that Nigeria’s wage structure has become detached from economic reality.

However, raising wages alone cannot solve the problem.

The organised private sector has raised legitimate concerns about its ability to pay across the board.

The president of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Leye Kupoluyi, said the private sector should not be compelled to pay the same wage level as the government if businesses could not afford it.

The Director-General of the Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association, Adewale Oyerinde, points out that the process for arriving at a National Minimum Wage is “rooted in widely acclaimed tripartite negotiations and consultation and not just political statements, without any empirical data to back up the quantum of increase.”

The Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise warned that many businesses are already struggling under crushing energy costs, logistics bottlenecks, foreign exchange challenges, multiple taxation and weak consumer demand. All this needs to be addressed.

Indeed, any wage increase that is unsupported by productivity growth and economic reforms risks fuelling another inflationary spiral. Businesses facing higher wage bills often pass costs to consumers, thereby worsening the very inflation the wage increase seeks to offset.

Nigeria must therefore avoid the false choice between workers’ welfare and business survival.

The real objective should be a living-wage framework tied to measurable economic indicators and supported by aggressive cost-of-living reduction policies.

This is the model increasingly adopted across many countries. In South Africa, the national minimum wage is approximately 28.79 rand per hour, translating to well over N250,000 monthly at prevailing exchange rates.

Algeria’s minimum wage is around 20,000 dinars (N204,000) monthly, while Egypt recently increased its public-sector minimum wage to 7,000 Egyptian pounds (N184,000).

Kenya’s minimum wage varies by sector and location, but the average of 16,113 Kenyan Shillings (N169,500) remains significantly higher in purchasing power terms than Nigeria’s.

Nigeria should not be setting wage policy as though inflation were a temporary inconvenience.

Food inflation remains the principal driver of household hardship, standing at 16.06 per cent YoY and higher than headline inflation of 15.69 per cent as of April.

Massive investments in agricultural productivity, rural roads, storage infrastructure and security in farming communities are urgently needed.

The absurd situation where healthy diets are more expensive in some rural communities than in urban centres because of poor roads must end.

The government must also address transport costs through investments in rail, inland waterways and public transportation systems.

Electricity tariffs remain a major burden on both households and businesses. Lowering energy costs would immediately improve living standards while enhancing business competitiveness.

Investments in health by ramping up health insurance enrolment and better access to quality care, and in education, via massive infrastructure improvements and teacher recruitment, will reduce household expenditure on these essentials.

Furthermore, labour’s argument regarding improved government revenues deserves scrutiny.

Since the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East, higher oil prices have boosted Nigeria’s earnings. It is estimated that the windfall has added more than N5 trillion to government coffers.

Whether that figure is an exaggeration or not, governments are receiving historically high FAAC allocations, averaging over a 50 per cent surge for states in 2025 and all tiers sharing up to N2 trillion in 2026.

Nigerians deserve to see some direct benefit from these gains through targeted subsidies for food production and transportation, public transit and essential services.

More fundamentally, wage determination should no longer depend on sporadic political negotiations every few years.

The National Minimum Wage Act should be amended to provide for automatic annual adjustments linked to inflation, productivity and cost-of-living indicators. Such a mechanism would prevent workers from suffering prolonged erosion of purchasing power before the government responds.

Above all, policymakers must remember that they are insulated from the hardships confronting ordinary citizens.

Governors, legislators, political appointees and senior public officials enjoy humongous allowances, subsidised accommodation, official vehicles, security details and generous expense accounts.

They do not queue for transport. They do not worry about school fees after buying food. They do not feel inflation in the same way as the average worker.

That disconnect explains why debates over N70,000, N100,000 or even N1 million often miss the central issue.

The goal of wage policy is not simply to keep workers alive so that the job is done. It is to ensure that honest labour can provide a decent standard of living.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Post Views: 100