Connect with us

Business

President Tinubu’s New 15% Imported Petrol and Diesel Tariff: A Bold Step or a Monopoly Trap?

Published

on

President Tinubu’s New 15% Imported Petrol and Diesel Tariff: A Bold Step or a Monopoly Trap? By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

President Tinubu’s New 15% Imported Petrol and Diesel Tariff: A Bold Step or a Monopoly Trap?

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

“A policy pitched as industrial protection and forex salvation; but does it protect Nigerians or consolidate a refinery monopoly?”

 

President Bola Tinubu’s recent approval of a 15 per cent ad-valorem import duty on refined petroleum products – petrol (PMS) and diesel (AGO) – was sold to Nigerians as tough, necessary medicine, protect domestic refining, preserve foreign exchange and reward a multi-billion-dollar private investment that finally began producing at scale. The logic is tidy in boardroom slide decks; raise the cost of cheap imports, make locally refined product price-competitive, nurture domestic industry and reduce the chronic hemorrhage of foreign exchange on refined fuels. Though policy is about consequences, not slogans. What the government calls protection risks becoming patronage; what it calls industrial policy could become the legal scaffolding for a monopoly.

 

The 15% duty was first approved and announced late October 2025 as part of a package of fiscal measures intended to shore up non-oil revenues and to secure the gains of the country’s nascent private refining capacity. The move came after the Dangote Petroleum Refinery (a $20 billion megaproject that began producing refined fuels in 2024) reached commercial throughput, prompting the government to incentivise local supply over imports. Proponents argue that the tariff would close the gap between imported product and locally refined output, prevent undercutting by underpriced foreign loads and protect what the government now frames as strategic industrial security.

 

On paper the argument has merit. Nigeria, paradoxically one of the world’s major crude oil producers, has for decades exported crude and imported refined products, a distortion that the Dangote refinery promised to end. Shielding nascent domestic refining from predatory pricing can be a legitimate industrial policy. Economies of scale take time; infant industries sometimes need temporary protection to survive; and the nation stands to gain from jobs, downstream activity and a retained share of the petroleum value chain. These are not fanciful claims, they are the underpinnings of industrial strategy everywhere.

The devil is in the detail and the distribution of beneficiaries. From the moment the policy was mooted, alarm bells rang among independent marketers, traders and many civil society groups. Their fear is simple and stark, a 15% import tariff applied in a market where one private refinery already produces a volume close to national demand risks removing competitors from the market, leaving one dominant supplier to set prices, ration supply and extract rents. In short: protection can calcify into monopoly. The concerns were not idle: within weeks of the tariff’s announcement traders warned that importers (many of whom supply the country’s internal distribution network and buffer the system in times of shortages) could be pushed out of the market, reducing supply diversity and increasing vulnerability to shortages and price shocks.

 

The Dangote Group and others publicly welcomed the policy, arguing it would stabilise supply and prevent substandard imports. Dangote’s spokesperson argued the tariff would not push up pump prices but would protect the industry and the economy. Yet a policy that appears to hand advantage to one private operator (even if unintentionally) invites suspicion. Critics pointed out that the refinery’s special economic arrangements (including Free Trade or EPZ-style privileges in some reporting) could leave independent importers bearing the full cost of the new duty while the privileged refinery remains insulated; a recipe for market capture.

And then the backlash swelled. Fuel marketers, unions, manufacturing bodies and some economists warned of immediate inflationary pass-through, higher transport costs and pressure on households already pushed to the brink by earlier economic reforms. Economist Gbolahan Olojede warned the duty could “reignite inflationary pressures” and cautioned against opaque implementation. Opinion pieces and industry briefs argued that a 15 per cent levy could add close to ₦95–₦100 per litre before storage, transport and margins, a reality with direct consequences for food prices, commuting costs and the competitiveness of Nigerian industry. These are not academic concerns in a country where a marginal uptick in fuel cost ripples quickly through the economy.

 

Faced with rising public unease and warnings from the trade and logistics end of the value chain (and with the peak holiday demand season approaching) the government stepped back. In mid-November 2025 the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) announced a halt/suspension of the planned tariff implementation, signalling a reversal of the deadline and committing to continued monitoring of supply to prevent disruption. That pause exposed the core political arithmetic, a policy that hits the pump in the short term is politically toxic, even if defensible in the abstract. The suspension also exposed the weak consultative process around the measure; a rushed political fiat had to be walked back after stakeholders made their costs plain.

President Tinubu’s New 15% Imported Petrol and Diesel Tariff: A Bold Step or a Monopoly Trap?

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

So where does that leave us? First, industrial protection without clear, time-bound guardrails is dangerous. Tariffs and duties can be used for legitimate industrial nurturing – but only when accompanied by competition safeguards, transparent exemptions, clearly published beneficiary lists, and sunset clauses. Second, the policy exposes Nigeria’s policy-making pathologies: an over-reliance on headline fiscal fixes announced without rigorous stakeholder modelling and without mandated impact assessments. Third, the episode highlights a deeper governance question: when a single private actor commands such strategic weight in a sector, policy needs to be exquisitely careful not to create the impression (or the reality) of state policy tailored to a single firm’s advantage.

 

There is a third dimension: currency and balance-of-payments logic. Reducing fuel imports would save foreign exchange and strengthen the naira (a true national boon) but only if domestic refineries can reliably meet demand, maintain quality standards and supply at competitive prices. Short-run protection that drives up the pump price without commensurate increase in domestic output simply trades forex savings for inflation pain and social discontent. In that light, the responsible path would have been a staged approach: phased tariffs tied to verified increases in domestic refining output, mandatory wholesale price monitoring, strong anti-hoarding enforcement and legislative guardrails against anti-competitive behaviour.

 

If we are to be patriotic (if we genuinely want Dangote and any other domestic refiner to succeed) then success must be broad, lawful and visibly pro-competitive. Policy should reward production, not penalise competition. The state must ensure that any tariff is matched by clear rules: fixed windows for imports for small marketers, credit facilities to help domestic distribution adapt and legal anti-monopoly protections enforced by an empowered regulator. Without such mechanisms, the 15% duty risks becoming a short cut to concentrated market power and, eventually, to higher prices for ordinary Nigerians.

 

President Tinubu’s impulse to protect domestic refining is understandable and defensible in principle. But good intent does not substitute for prudent design. The recent suspension was a salutary reminder: economic management in Nigeria cannot be a monthly toggle between headline reform and crisis control. If this tariff is ever reintroduced, it must be transparent, time-bound, conditional on measurable domestic output increases, and paired with competition safeguards and social mitigation measures for low-income households.

 

In the end, Nigerians will judge policy by what they pay at the pump and whether they can feed their families. A tariff that secures refining jobs and strengthens the naira while keeping pumps stable would be a courageous, strategic win. A tariff that quietly abets market concentration and hands an overwhelming commercial advantage to a single refinery will be remembered as a policy that traded public interest for private gain. The difference between a bold step and a monopoly trap is not rhetorical (it is procedural, technical and enforceable. It is also, crucially, reversible) if we have the political will to put transparent guardrails in place before it is too late.

President Tinubu’s New 15% Imported Petrol and Diesel Tariff: A Bold Step or a Monopoly Trap?

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

Bank

Fidelity Bank grows gross earnings by 38% to N434.95b in Q1

Published

on

Fidelity Bank grows gross earnings by 38% to N434.95b in Q1

 

Fidelity Bank Plc recorded 37.9 per cent growth in gross earnings to N434.95 billion in first quarter 2026 as the international commercial bank continued to expand its core banking market share.

 

Interim report and accounts of Fidelity Bank for the three months ended March 31, 2026 released at the Nigerian Exchange (NGX) showed that gross earnings rose from N315.42 billion in first quarter 20025 to N434.95 billion in first quarter 2026, representing an increase of 37.9 per cent.
The top-line performance was driven by impressive growth in the bank’s core business operations with interest incomes rising by 22.8 per cent to N314.48 billion in first quarter 2026 as against N256.10 billion in first quarter 2025.

 

With net interest income at N180.97 billion, the bank closed the period with profit before tax of N92.48 billion. After taxes, net profit stood at N74.47 billion for the three-month period. Earnings per share remained high at N5.69, underlining the capacity of the bank to reward its shareholders.

 

 

The balance sheet of the bank also emerged stronger. Total assets crossed the N11 trillion mark to N11.35 trillion by March 2026 compared with N10.46 trillion recorded in December 2025. Customers’ deposits increased from N6.89 trillion to N7.38 trillion. Total equity rode on the back of earnings growth to a 27.5 per cent increase from N1.09 trillion in December 2025 to N1.39 trillion by March 2026.

 

 

The first quarter 2026 results further consolidated the strong earnings outlook of the bank, which had successfully completed its recapitalisation amidst impressive earnings performance in 2025.
Fidelity Bank had recorded double-digit growths in interest and non-interest incomes as well as key balance sheet items during the year ended December 31, 2025.

 

 

The audited report showed that gross earnings rose from N1.04 trillion in 2024 to N1.52 trillion in 2025, an increase of 45.6 per cent. Interest and similar incomes had grown by 38.7 per cent from N803.1 billion in 2024 to N1.11 trillion in 2025. Fees and commission incomes also rose by 44.7 per cent from N78.4 billion to N113.4 billion. The bank recorded net profit after tax of N242.4 billion in 2025.

 

 

The bank’s balance sheet emerged stronger with total assets rising by 18.6 per cent to N10.46 trillion in 2025 as against N8.82 trillion in 2024. Customer deposits increased by 16.1 per cent from N5.94 trillion to N6.89 trillion, reflecting continued franchise strength and an improved funding profile. Net loans and advances meanwhile declined by 2.4 per cent to N4.28 trillion in 2025 as against N4.39 trillion in 2024, attributable to customers paying down on their mature obligations.

 

 

The bank had in 2025 strengthened its capital position, with eligible capital rising to N561 billion, above the regulatory minimum of N500 billion for banks with international authorisation. In addition, capital adequacy had remained robust, with Capital Adequacy Ratio of 30.94 per cent by December 2025 as against 23.47 per cent by December 2024.

 

Managing Director, Fidelity Bank Plc, Dr. Nneka Onyeali-Ikpe, said the first quarter 2026 results reinforced the bank’s strong and resilient business model.

 

She noted that with the remarkable success of its recapitalisation programme and continuing expansion, Fidelity Bank has entered a new era of growth and impressive returns.

 

“We are on a stronger footing and confident that we will set new growth records that are reflective of our legacy and the future we are working on,” Onyeali-Ikpe said.

Continue Reading

Business

Dangote Refinery Ends Nigeria’s Era of Fuel Import Dependence, Boosts GDP, FX Earnings — EIU

Published

on

NLC Commends Dangote Refinery, Urges FG to Sell Adequate Crude in Naira to Reduce Fuel Prices

Dangote Refinery Ends Nigeria’s Era of Fuel Import Dependence, Boosts GDP, FX Earnings — EIU

The operational ramp up of the 650,000 barrels per day Dangote Petroleum Refinery & Petrochemicals is fundamentally reshaping Nigeria’s downstream oil sector, significantly reducing the country’s dependence on imported refined petroleum products and strengthening its external position, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

In its latest assessment on Nigeria’s fuel market and regulatory environment, the EIU said the refinery has already transformed a sector that was previously characterised by heavy reliance on imported fuel despite Nigeria being Africa’s largest crude oil producer. The report noted that the refinery met nearly 80 per cent of domestic petrol demand in April and produced enough volumes to satisfy local consumption requirements as operations approached full capacity.

The EIU described Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector before the refinery as “long dysfunctional”, noting that the country had remained almost entirely dependent on costly imported fuel while producing nearly 1.5 million barrels of crude oil daily.

According to the report, the emergence of the refinery has reduced import dependence, improved domestic fuel availability and strengthened Nigeria’s balance of payments position through lower import demand and rising exports of refined petroleum products.

“The gradual ramp up of the 650,000 barrel/day Dangote refinery since May 2023 has transformed Nigeria’s long dysfunctional downstream sector,” the report stated. “The country’s main refineries, all state owned, had been inoperative for years and Nigeria was almost entirely reliant on costly imported fuel.”

The research and analysis division of The Economist Group, London added that the refinery’s attainment of full operational capacity and its planned expansion would further support Nigeria’s economic growth and foreign exchange earnings over the medium term.

“Meanwhile, the attainment of full capacity at, and an increase in exports from, the Dangote refinery will support real GDP growth and foreign exchange earnings in 2026 and 2027 and beyond, as a planned doubling of the plant’s output comes on stream around the end of the decade,” it added.

Industry analysts said the refinery is increasingly positioning Nigeria as an emerging refining and export hub, altering energy trade flows across Africa and reducing the vulnerability associated with fuel import dependence.

The EIU noted that the refinery’s expansion has coincided with major reforms in Nigeria’s downstream sector, including the removal of fuel subsidies and the introduction of market driven pricing mechanisms.

The report, however, said the transition from a state dominated fuel import structure to large scale domestic refining has triggered resistance from interests linked to the old import regime.

The latest tensions emerged following the decision by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority to relax restrictions on petrol imports despite the refinery’s growing capacity to meet domestic demand.

Dangote Industries subsequently initiated legal action, arguing that continued import approvals undermine domestic refining investments and conflict with the objectives of the Petroleum Industry Act, which seeks to encourage local refining capacity and reduce import dependence.

Analysts noted that the availability of large-scale domestic refining capacity has improved Nigeria’s energy security and reduced exposure to external supply shocks and foreign exchange volatility.

The Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise also cautioned against unrestrained importation of petroleum products, warning that such a policy could weaken Nigeria’s industrialisation drive and discourage investments in domestic refining.

Chief Executive Officer of CPPE, Muda Yusuf, said continued dependence on imported fuel had historically contributed to pressure on foreign reserves, exchange rate instability and fiscal leakages.

The refinery’s growing impact is also being reflected in Nigeria’s broader macroeconomic indicators. Earlier this month, S&P Global Ratings cited increased domestic refining capacity and rising hydrocarbon exports among the major factors supporting Nigeria’s sovereign credit rating upgrade – the first in 14 years.

Beyond Nigeria, analysts said the refinery is increasingly being viewed as a strategic industrial asset for Africa, where many countries remain heavily dependent on imported fuel despite rising demand for transportation, manufacturing, and power generation.

 

Continue Reading

Business

BREAKING: Court Dismisses $19.6 Million Claim Against NNPCL — Rules Contract Scope Cannot Be Changed Orally

Published

on

BREAKING: Court Dismisses $19.6 Million Claim Against NNPCL — Rules Contract Scope Cannot Be Changed Orally

 

In a landmark ruling on Friday, May 22, 2026, the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja threw out a $19.6 million lawsuit filed by Alternate Dimensions Ventures Ltd against the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), affirming a key legal principle: a written contract cannot be expanded through oral agreements or conduct.

Alternate Dimensions had sought $19,600,000 in professional fees, claiming the scope of its Direct Sale, Direct Purchase (DSDP e-pro) contract with NNPCL was orally expanded. Represented by counsel Patrick Peter, the firm argued it was entitled to the revised sum for services rendered under the alleged new terms.

But NNPCL, through its lawyer Ituah Imhanze of KENNA LP, pushed back sharply, arguing that parties are bound exclusively by the clear terms of their written agreement. Imhanze contended that without any written amendment, the claim was legally unsound, and the court agreed.

Delivering judgment, Justice Hamza Mu’azu upheld NNPCL’s defense, stating that the contract was unambiguous and that no evidence was adduced during the trial, which supported the alleged scope expansion. The court further found that NNPCL fully complied with all contractual terms and committed no breach.

Dismissing the suit as meritless, Justice Mu’azu reinforced the doctrine of sanctity of contract: any amendment to a written agreement must be express, unequivocal, and documented, not implied or verbal.

The ruling spares NNPCL from the S19.6 million claim and also a floodgate of similar potential liabilities.

Continue Reading

Cover Of The Week

Trending