Connect with us

Business

Nigeria suffers nearly N1tn export loss after Trump tariff

Published

on

Nigeria’s exports to the United States fell by N940.98bn in the first nine months of 2025, even as imports from America more than doubled, reversing the trade balance that favoured Nigeria a year earlier, findings from the National Bureau of Statistics’ foreign trade data have shown.

An analysis of the NBS figures for Q1–Q3 2024 and Q1–Q3 2025 showed that Nigeria exported goods worth N3.65tn to the US in the first nine months of 2025, down from N4.59tn recorded in the corresponding period of 2024, representing a decline of 20.5 per cent or N940.98bn.

Over the same nine-month period, Nigeria’s imports from the US rose sharply to N6.80tn from N3.01tn, an increase of 125.5 per cent or N3.78tn, indicating that Nigeria bought far more from the US than it sold to the market in 2025.

This left Nigeria with a trade deficit of about N3.15tn with the United States in the first nine months of 2025, compared with a trade surplus of N1.57tn in the corresponding period of 2024.

The deterioration coincided with Washington’s implementation of its “reciprocal” tariff regime, under which Donald Trump signed an executive order raising Nigeria’s tariff rate from 14 per cent to 15 per cent.

The order, issued late July, took effect on August 7, 2025. Although crude oil has been exempted in several cases, the higher duty applies directly to a wide range of non-oil Nigerian exports, creating uncertainty for American importers and dampening demand ahead of and after the effective date.

With crude oil exports largely exempted from the new tariff regime, non-oil exports appear to have borne the brunt of the disruption. In the first nine months of 2024, Nigeria’s exports to the US rose steadily quarter-on-quarter, from N1.31tn in Q1 to N1.59tn in Q2 and N1.69tn in Q3.

Imports, by contrast, remained relatively moderate at N1.01tn, N965.50bn, and N1.04tn respectively. This resulted in trade surpluses of N301.94bn in Q1, N620.99bn in Q2, and N649.71bn in Q3, culminating in a cumulative surplus of N1.57tn for the nine-month period.

That trend reversed sharply in 2025. Although exports opened the year at N1.54tn in Q1, they fell to N1.36tn in Q2 and then plunged to N743.63bn in Q3. Imports followed the opposite trajectory, rising from N1.42tn in Q1 to N2.16tn in Q2 and surging further to N3.22tn in Q3.

Quarter-on-quarter analysis showed that exports declined by 11.9 per cent between Q1 and Q2 2025, before collapsing by 45.3 per cent between Q2 and Q3. Imports, meanwhile, jumped by 51.8 per cent between Q1 and Q2 and rose by another 49.1 per cent between Q2 and Q3, rapidly widening Nigeria’s trade deficit with the US.

See also  Discos earn N600bn in three months despite electricity blackouts

On a year-on-year basis, exports to the US grew by 17.7 per cent in Q1 2025 compared with Q1 2024, but the trend reversed thereafter. Exports fell by 14.3 per cent in Q2 2025 compared with Q2 2024 and plunged by 56.0 per cent in Q3 2025 relative to Q3 2024.

Imports increased sharply across all quarters, rising by 40.9 per cent in Q1, 123.5 per cent in Q2, and 209.4 per cent in Q3. The sharp contraction in export earnings explains why the United States dropped out of Nigeria’s top five export destinations by Q2 and Q3 of 2025, despite remaining one of Nigeria’s largest sources of imports.

Product-level data from the NBS further shows the imbalance. In Q1 2025, Nigeria’s exports to the US were dominated by crude petroleum oils valued at N779.38bn, followed by urea at N240.17bn and kerosene-type jet fuel at N214.30bn. Other export items included petroleum gases in gaseous state valued at N95.97bn and standard quality cocoa beans at N58.84bn.

Imports from the US in Q1 2025 were led by crude petroleum oils worth N726.84bn, alongside used diesel vehicles above 2,500cc valued at N93.51bn, lubricating oil additives at N60.12bn, soya beans at N45.04bn, and butanes at N32.85bn.

By Q2 2025, Nigeria’s export basket to the US had narrowed significantly, led by cocoa beans worth N37.39bn and urea valued at N106.44bn, alongside technically specified natural rubber at N10.43bn and leather products valued at N127.22m.

Imports, however, expanded sharply, with crude petroleum oils alone valued at N1.34tn, followed by used vehicles, wheat, motor spirit, and denatured alcohol. In Q3 2025, exports dwindled further to relatively minor items such as soya bean flour valued at N23.60bn, cocoa powder preparations worth N36.83m, and technically specified natural rubber valued at N5.03bn.

Imports from the US continued to surge, with crude petroleum oils rising to N2.31tn, alongside strong inflows of used vehicles, wheat, and industrial plastics. With the US no longer among Nigeria’s top five export destinations by mid-2025 and imports accelerating rapidly, the figures highlight growing structural weaknesses in Nigeria’s trade position and the vulnerability of its export earnings to external policy shifts.

See also  Tambuwal fights back over N189bn EFCC probe

FG pledges resilience

Earlier in September, President Bola Tinubu said his administration will remain resilient and has no fear of the trade policy direction of US President Donald Trump, particularly tariffs targeting Nigerian exports. The President cited Nigeria’s current economic trajectory and growing non-oil revenues as buffers against external shocks. Tinubu said, “If non-oil revenue is growing, then we have no fear of whatever Trump is doing on the other side.”

Also, Nigeria’s Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, Jumoke Oduwole, said the country would not be stampeded into retaliatory action but would continue on its path of reform and diversification. “Nigeria remains responsive; we’re not reacting. We’re focused on the eight-point agenda of President Bola Tinubu. We will continue to support domestic investors and expand market access for Nigerian businesses,” Oduwole said.

She noted that while the United States remains an important trade partner, Nigeria is strengthening its African Continental Free Trade Area strategy and boosting non-oil exports, which grew by 24 per cent year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025.

“It’s mostly an energy trading relationship, but we are waiting to see what happens with AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act) in September. We are also growing exports to other African countries and expanding partnerships with Brazil, China, Japan, and the UAE,” she added.

The minister stressed that Nigeria would seize opportunities for South–South cooperation, pursue export diversification, and reduce dependence on the American market.

Stakeholders in Nigeria’s export sector earlier called on the United States of America to review the tariffs on Nigerian products, while describing the tariff as an opportunity for the country to expand its non-oil exports.

Experts speak

Stakeholders led by the Nigerian-American Chamber of Commerce and the Nigerian Export Promotion Council noted that the US tariffs should not be seen only as a challenge but also as a window for growth.

Also, a development economist and Chief Executive Officer of CSA Advisory, Dr Aliyu Ilias, said Nigeria should view the current trade situation as an opportunity to adapt. “I think it’s a good time that this is happening to Nigeria. Trump’s tariff is not only for Nigeria. The advantage is that we are now exporting more overall, which is positive for us,” he said.

Ilias argued that Nigeria could use its position within BRICS and other international alliances to reduce vulnerability and build resilience. He added that with other countries such as India and China also facing US tariffs, Nigeria had an opening to forge new partnerships.

See also  Oil sector key to economic growth – Don

“We also have to start being on our own. We can trade with other partners and see, because other partners are also looking for partners. The tariff that is affecting us is also affecting others, so it may be a good opportunity,” he added.

Similarly, renowned economist and Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise, Dr Muda Yusuf, downplayed the impact of the US tariffs on Nigeria. “Our trade with the US is not that strategic. When anything goes wrong, it is not as if it can have any fundamental effect on our economy. Our trade exposure to them is very limited,” Yusuf explained.

He noted that Nigerian exports to the US are dominated by crude oil and a handful of other commodities such as fertilisers, making the country’s trade profile narrow and underdeveloped in non-oil areas. Yusuf added that Nigeria’s tariff exposure is relatively moderate compared with other countries. However, he identified another challenge beyond tariffs: US visa policy.

“The bigger challenge for Nigeria’s trade relationship with the U.S. is Washington’s visa policy. Barriers to travel limit business interactions and investment inflows. That is more critical than tariffs in the long run,” he said.

Since its inception, the Trump administration has steadily rolled out a series of visa restrictions and travel bans targeting Nigeria and several other countries.

He has cited the need to reform the US immigration system, strengthen border security, and improve the vetting of foreign nationals as justification for the decisions.

These measures, which have generated diplomatic unease and personal distress, reached a new phase with the latest proclamation signed by the US President.

The proclamation imposed travel restrictions on Nigerians and citizens of 16 other African countries. According to the White House, holders of the B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas are barred from entering the United States from January 1, 2026.

The visa categories cover business and tourist travel, as well as students and exchange visitors, effectively affecting a broad spectrum of Nigerians.

Beyond security concerns, the US government also cited what it described as a high rate of visa overstays by Nigerian nationals as part of the justification for the restrictions.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Business

Court orders Virgin Atlantic to pay N13m for missed flight

Published

on

A Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited to pay Mrs. Joy Ezetah the sum of $5,906.50 in damages after it failed to allow her board a scheduled Lagos-London flight, an incident that disrupted her onward trip to Canada and caused her financial loss.

Justice Ibrahim Kala in the judgement delivered on Monday, held that the airline was liable for the losses suffered by the claimant after she was denied boarding at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport on 6 April 2024.

The claimant had asked the court for N100m in general damages, arguing that she bought a business-class ticket through Air Canada for a four-leg trip from Lagos to Toronto and back, but was stopped from boarding the Virgin Atlantic flight “without justification.”

She told the court that she arrived early, completed check-in, and was issued a boarding pass for the Lagos-London leg.

According to her, airline officials later prevented her from boarding, stating they could not connect her ticket to her Air Canada connecting flight from London to Toronto.

Ezetah stated that the airline owed her a duty of care and should have resolved the issue with Air Canada or made other arrangements instead of denying her boarding.

She further maintained that when she later contacted Air Canada, the airline confirmed that her ticket was valid and that she was expected on the connecting flight.

Virgin Atlantic, however, denied liability. It said it was “not the issuing carrier” and insisted that the ticket had been purchased directly from Air Canada under a codeshare arrangement.

See also  PDP crisis: Wike camp rejects zoning talks with Makinde, Diri

The airline also argued that an error code in the reservation system prevented it from issuing a boarding pass for the connecting flight and that it acted professionally by advising the passenger to contact the ticket issuer.

It further contended that the claimant’s inability to complete online check-in before arriving at the airport showed that there was already a problem with the ticket.

After reviewing the evidence, submissions and legal authorities cited by both sides, Justice Kala held that the claimant’s case had merit.

The court awarded $5,906.50 in damages against Virgin Atlantic and ordered that the sum be paid using the prevailing exchange rate published by the Central Bank of Nigeria. Based on the highest official rate of N1,365.50 to a dollar, the award translates to about N8.07m.

Justice Kala also ordered the airline to pay 10 per cent interest per annum on the judgment sum until full liquidation of the debt.

Additionally, the court awarded N5m as costs against Virgin Atlantic, noting that the claimant had been forced to approach the court to enforce her rights.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Business

States kick as Senate moves to amend Electricity Act; read details

Published

on

A fresh battle over the control of Nigeria’s electricity sector is brewing, as state electricity regulators have accused the National Assembly of attempting to claw back powers already devolved to states under the Constitution and the Electricity Act 2023.

In a strongly worded memorandum submitted to the Senate Committee on Power and obtained by our correspondent on Tuesday, electricity regulatory commissions and bureaus from 16 states warned that the proposed Electricity Act (Amendment) Bill 2026 could reverse one of the most significant reforms in Nigeria’s power sector.

The regulators argued that the amendment bill, rather than strengthening the electricity market, seeks to restore extensive federal oversight over matters they insist have constitutionally become the responsibility of states.

The concerns were contained in a letter dated May 26, 2026, addressed to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Power and signed on behalf of the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions and Bureaus.

Signatories to the document included the chairmen and chief executives of electricity regulators in Abia, Anambra, Bayelsa, Edo, Ekiti, Enugu, Gombe, Imo, Kogi, Lagos, Nasarawa, Niger, Ogun, Ondo, Oyo and Plateau states.

The regulators said they had taken advantage of the Electricity Act 2023 to begin building sub-national electricity markets and had already engaged investors based on the framework created by the law.

They noted that they had earlier met with the Senate committee and were subsequently requested to consolidate their concerns into a single memorandum for the consideration of lawmakers, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission and other stakeholders.

The letter stated, “We represent State Regulatory Commissions/Bureaus that have taken advantage of the Electricity Act 2023 to commence the development of our sub-national electricity markets and sectors.

We are grateful for the audience you granted us to raise concerns on the ongoing consideration of the proposed Amendment Bill 2026 to the Electricity Act 2023.

“As agreed during our discussion, we have collated and consolidated the comments into one document which is hereby attached for the consideration of the Senate and House Committees on Power, NERC and other stakeholders.”

The state electricity regulators said they had identified 17 contentious provisions in the proposed amendments to the Electricity Act that they believed could undermine the constitutional powers already granted to states in the electricity sector.

According to the regulators, the areas of disagreement include the authorisation of State Houses of Assembly to legislate on electricity matters, the supremacy of state laws within state electricity markets, and provisions seeking to retain federal control over all activities connected to the national grid.

Other disputed clauses relate to restrictions on states’ participation in the wholesale electricity market, matters concerning the Nigerian Wholesale Electricity Market, the authority of states over independent transmission and distribution networks, and the establishment and administration of the Power Consumers Assistance Fund.

The regulators also raised concerns over the proposed expansion of the powers of the Nigerian Electricity Management Services Agency, the structure and decisions of the Forum of Electricity Regulators, and the provision granting the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission final administrative appellate jurisdiction on certain issues arising within the forum.

See also  Is Trump correct on Nigeria?

They further opposed provisions designating electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply as essential services, as well as clauses dealing with government-owned enterprises as licensees and obligations to host communities.

Additional areas of contention include the regulation of intra-state electricity matters that may have implications for the national grid, the imposition of timelines and phased conditions for states transitioning into independent electricity markets, and proposed federal oversight on consumer protection, anti-trust measures and tariff design within state electricity jurisdictions.

The regulators argued that the disputed provisions require further consultation to ensure that the decentralisation objectives of the Electricity Act are not weakened by subsequent amendments.

“A review of the Bill suggests that the general intention is to reverse the devolution of legislative, governance and regulatory powers over electricity matters that occur solely within the respective states to the state governments, in favour of a reconsolidation of powers at the federal level, with the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission retaining full supervisory powers over the market. Effectively, it appears that the intention of the Bill is that Nigeria should continue with the same regime that, for 20 years, has not led to any significant increase in power availability or per capita consumption for Nigerians, despite ever-increasing (and unsustainable) federal debt.”

At the centre of the dispute is the interpretation of the constitutional amendments that allowed states to legislate on electricity matters within their territories. The regulators argued that the proposed amendment bill wrongly assumes that state legislatures derive their powers from the National Assembly rather than directly from the Constitution.

According to them, any attempt by the National Assembly to grant, restrict or redefine those powers through ordinary legislation would amount to a constitutional violation.

The memorandum stated, “Section 2 of the Bill aims to amend Section 2(2)(a)-(e) of the Principal Act. By that section, the National Assembly reserves to itself the power to delegate legislative powers to States’ Houses of Assembly, suggesting that the Bill (or the Principal Act) is the source of the powers of a state to make laws on its electricity markets.

“This provision is based on a shocking miscomprehension of Nigerian constitutional law—it proceeds from the wrong assumption that the NASS, by ordinary legislation and not constitutional amendment, can confer (or restrict) the legislative power of states.

“The constitutional division of powers is fundamental to federalism, ensuring a balance between national unity and state autonomy. There is no legal framework for the NASS to ‘empower’ state governments to make law by ordinary legislation, as the language of the Bill attempts to do.

“The constitutional division of powers is fundamental to federalism, ensuring a balance between national unity and state autonomy. There is no legal framework for the NASS to ‘empower’ state governments to make law by ordinary legislation, as the language of the Bill attempts to do. Consequently, Section 2 of the Bill, seeking to amend Section 2 of the Act, is not consistent with the Constitution.”

See also  New tax regime: What’s true, what’s not

The regulators described as “a shocking miscomprehension of Nigerian constitutional law” the provisions of the bill that appear to suggest that the National Assembly is the source of states’ authority over electricity matters.

They warned that the proposed law could undermine the principle of federalism by weakening state autonomy. Beyond constitutional concerns, the regulators said the bill could create uncertainty in the electricity market and discourage investors who had already committed resources based on the existing legal framework.

“The clear intention behind the new drafting is to reconsolidate in the Federal Government matters solely within the state electricity markets which had been devolved to the states,” the memorandum stated.

“This will defeat the key objectives of the Electricity Act and the various states’ electricity laws, even before the regime introduced by them has taken any root. It will introduce avoidable disruption in the industry as significant investment decisions have already been taken based on the Electricity Act 2023, and these investments are now put at risk by this proposed amendment.”

The state regulators specifically faulted provisions relating to federal oversight of activities connected to the national grid, restrictions on state authority over wholesale electricity transactions, the proposed expansion of NERC’s powers and changes affecting mini-grids and independent distribution systems.

They argued that allowing NERC to retain overriding authority over electricity activities merely because they have some connection to the national grid would effectively render state powers meaningless.

The memorandum stated, “What is required, in order to attain the full benefits of the decentralisation of the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry that is the theme of the Fifth Alteration and provided for in the Principal Act, is proper coordination on transmission matters between NERC and state regulators, and not top-down federal legislation.”

The regulators also rejected provisions that would permit NERC to exercise final administrative appellate jurisdiction over disputes involving state electricity regulators. According to them, NERC and the SERCs are on equal standing within their respective constitutional spheres of authority.

“NERC and the SERCs are on equal standing within their respective constitutional spheres of authority,” the memorandum said. “The National Assembly cannot arrogate to NERC quasi-judicial authority over SERCs, especially where the dispute might be on a matter over which NERC has no authority.”

They further argued that the Constitution already vests judicial powers in the courts and that such responsibilities cannot be transferred to a regulatory agency. The proposed establishment of a Forum of Electricity Regulators also drew criticism.

Although the regulators acknowledged the importance of coordination among electricity regulators, they argued that participation in such arrangements should be voluntary rather than imposed through federal legislation.

See also  Infractions - FG threatens to disconnect Gencos from power grid

“The better approach would be a Memorandum of Understanding or similar instrument jointly negotiated by all relevant regulatory bodies in which the principles of coordination and harmonisation will be agreed,” they said.

The state regulators equally opposed provisions declaring generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity as essential services covering both federal and state electricity markets.

According to them, such provisions could inadvertently expand NERC’s jurisdiction into areas already devolved to states, including tariff regulation. “The provision is invidious, regressive and should be expunged,” the memorandum stated.

The regulators also faulted proposals empowering NERC to determine contributions to the Power Consumers Assistance Fund from electricity consumers. They argued that since electricity tariffs and retail supply have become matters for state regulation, decisions relating to subsidies and customer contributions should similarly reside with state authorities.

Other contentious areas identified by the regulators included host community obligations, the role of the Nigerian Electricity Management Services Agency, licensing arrangements involving government-owned electricity enterprises and timelines for states transitioning into independent electricity markets.

The dispute highlights the growing tension between the Federal Government and states over the future structure of Nigeria’s electricity industry. The Electricity Act 2023 was enacted following the Fifth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution, which removed electricity from the Exclusive Legislative List and empowered states to generate, transmit and distribute electricity within their territories.

Since then, several states have enacted electricity laws and established regulatory agencies to oversee emerging sub-national electricity markets. Lagos, Enugu, Ekiti, Ondo, Edo and other states have already commenced varying stages of implementation of their electricity reform programmes.

Energy experts have repeatedly described the decentralisation of the sector as a major opportunity to attract investment, improve efficiency and expand access to electricity. However, the latest amendment proposals appear to have reopened the debate over how regulatory powers should be shared between Abuja and the states.

As the National Assembly continues deliberations on the amendment bill, the position adopted by lawmakers could shape the future direction of Nigeria’s electricity reforms and determine whether the country deepens its experiment with decentralisation or returns to a more centralised regulatory model.

The Electricity Act 2023 was designed to operationalise the constitutional amendments that empowered states to participate directly in electricity generation, transmission and distribution within their boundaries. Since its enactment, several states have passed their own electricity laws and established regulatory commissions.

The proposed Electricity Act (Amendment) Bill 2026 seeks to amend several provisions of the principal legislation. However, state regulators contend that some of the proposed changes amount to an attempt to reverse the gains of decentralisation and restore broad federal control over the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Business

Africa urgently needs more fish farms, says UN

Published

on

Africa needs to urgently expand its fish-farming sector to meet its food needs, the head of the UN’s fisheries division said Tuesday, even as its latest report found record production levels globally.

Fish and seafood is now a $184-billion trade, according to the State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture report by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), launched at the Our Ocean Conference in Kenya.

Fish-farming, or “aquaculture”, overtook traditional “capture” fishing as a source of food production in 2021 and has continued to grow — surpassing 100 million tonnes for the first time in 2024, the latest year for data.

But Africa is lagging behind the rest of the world, with only 18 percent of its fish coming from farms, compared to around half elsewhere.

Sub-Saharan Africa’s fish production will need to grow by 68 percent between now and 2050 to keep up with its rapidly growing population, the FAO said.

“It’s an opportunity waiting to be exploited… but it’s whether the timing is sufficiently fast to catch up with that demand,” Manuel Barange, director of the FAO’s fisheries division, told AFP.

“Aquaculture can actually be a game-changer,” he said. “If we manage to develop aquaculture in Africa, there’s a lot of opportunities.”

But governments urgently need to create regulations and incentives to attract investors, Barange added.

More than 700 different species of fish are raised for consumption on aquaculture farms around the world and the FAO argues it is a more predictable and sustainable approach than traditional fishing at sea.

See also  PDP crisis: Wike camp rejects zoning talks with Makinde, Diri

It is also more manageable in the face of climate change, which is causing rapid changes in the volumes and locations of ocean fish.

Climate change is “a disruptor of everything that we do,” said Barange.

More work is also needed to reduce over-fishing: the report found that only 62 percent of global fisheries were sustainably fished.

The 11th edition of the Our Ocean Conference began in the Kenyan port city of Mombasa on Tuesday — its first time in Africa — bringing together politicians, NGOs, investors and innovators.

Since its first edition in 2014, organisers boast that it has led to more than 2,900 commitments valued at over $169 billion, covering marine conservation, sustainable fisheries, climate adaptation, security and pollution reduction.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending