E-Financial
Refining Without Relief: How Global Oil Wars, Market Structure, and Monopoly Risks Still Drive Fuel Prices in Nigeria
By Blaise Udunze
The vision was bold. The expectation was clear. And the promise was powerful. When the Dangote Refinery began operations, it was hailed as Nigeria’s long-awaited escape from decades of energy contradiction, which involves exporting crude oil while importing refined fuel at high costs. It was meant to guarantee supply, stabilize prices, conserve foreign exchange, and most importantly, deliver relief to ordinary Nigerians.
What appears to be a distinct contradiction is that, despite months into its operation, a different reality is emerging, with fuel prices rising sharply. Inflationary pressures are intensifying. This occurrence has forced Nigerians to ask a difficult question once again, one that calls for an urgent answer. Why does a country that produces and refines crude oil still suffer the consequences of global oil shocks?
Looking at the trend, it is clear that the answer lies not just in geopolitics, but in the deeper structure of Nigeria’s oil economy, where global pricing, policy gaps, and now the looming risk of monopoly intersect.
With the recent development, the latest alarming surge in petrol prices has been driven largely by escalating tensions in the Middle East. This is particularly the U.S-Israel strikes on Iran and retaliatory measures from Tehran. A well-known fact is that at the center of the crisis is the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil transit route through which a significant portion of global supply flows. Any disruption, even a speculative one, triggers immediate spikes in crude prices.
Within a week, oil prices jumped from the mid-$60 range to nearly $120 per barrel. For global markets, this is expected. For Nigeria, it is devastatingly ironic. Because, despite having crude oil in abundance and despite refining it locally, Nigeria remains fully exposed and this has continued to re-echo the same ironic question.
In a rare moment of corporate candor, the refinery’s leadership acknowledged this reality. The plant is deeply affected by global shocks. Crude oil, even when sourced locally, is priced at international benchmarks. Shipping costs have surged dramatically, from about $800,000 per tanker to as high as $3.5 million. Insurance premiums have climbed, and logistics have become significantly more expensive, with total costs further driving higher.
Even more revealing is the refinery’s sourcing structure. Only about 30 percent – 35 percent of crude comes from the Nigerian government supply under the crude-for-naira framework. A significant portion is still purchased in U.S. dollars on the open market, while another 30 percent – 40 percent is sourced internationally, including from the United States and other regions. This means the refinery is not insulated; it is integrated into the global oil system. The implication is unavoidable as local refining has not translated into local pricing control.
The impact on Nigerians has been immediate and severe, as petrol prices have surged from under N800 earlier in the year to over N1,200, and in some regions, it is even more alarming when the prices skyrocketed close to N1,400 per litre. Within weeks, multiple price increases have been recorded, driven largely by global crude price spikes and rising logistics costs. Doubtless, the country has witnessed the consequences ripple across the economy as transport fares rise, food prices increase, businesses struggle with higher operating costs, and inflation accelerates.
The development has attracted the attention of the labour unions and the organised private sector, prompting them to raise concerns and alarm about the consequences of job losses, business closures, and worsening hardship if the trend continues with each passing day, witnessing a daily increase and causing possible artificial scarcity.
Nigeria remains trapped in a painful contradiction. It produces crude oil. It refines crude oil. Yet it cannot protect its citizens from global oil volatility. As Aliko Dangote himself acknowledged, Nigeria has no direct role in the conflict driving these price increases, yet it bears the consequences due to global economic interdependence.
In a real sense, this is the deeper tragedy, as Nigeria has achieved capacity without control.
At the heart of the issue is a structural reality, crude oil is priced globally, not locally. Even under the crude-for-naira arrangement, pricing is benchmarked against international rates. This means refineries pay global crude prices, fuel prices reflect global market conditions, and domestic consumers absorb international shocks. In essence, Nigeria has moved refining home without bringing pricing sovereignty with it.
To be fair, the Dangote Refinery has played a stabilizing role. Nigeria still enjoys relatively lower petrol prices compared to many global markets. In several countries, supply disruptions have led to panic buying and rationing, while Nigeria has maintained a consistent supply. As the refinery’s CEO aptly noted, what is worse than $120 oil is no oil. The refinery has prevented scarcity, but it has not prevented high prices. Availability, in this case, has not equated to affordability, which is the painful part for the citizens.
While much of the current debate focuses on pricing, another critical issue is quietly taking shape, which is the risk of market concentration. Dangote Refinery deserves credit for its scale and ambition, but scale brings power, and power demands oversight. If fuel importers are gradually pushed out and no competing refineries emerge at scale, Nigeria could find itself transitioning from a public sector monopoly to a private sector dominance led by a single player.
Nigeria has seen this pattern before. In the cement industry, increased domestic production did not necessarily translate into lower prices. Limited competition allowed prices to remain elevated despite local capacity. The same risk now looms in the downstream oil sector. Without competition, price-setting power becomes concentrated, supply risks increase, and consumer protection weakens. In a country with fragile regulatory institutions, this is not a theoretical concern; it is a real and present danger.
No one should perceive this wrongly, because it is important, however, not to misplace blame. It should be made known that the Dangote Refinery is not a charity; it is a private enterprise operating within market realities. It must recover its investment, manage costs, and deliver returns. Its exposure to global pricing is not a failure of intent but a function of the system within which it operates.
The real issue lies in the structure of the market and the absence of sufficient competition.
It is no longer news that Nigeria’s downstream sector is now largely deregulated following the removal of fuel subsidies. While deregulation has reduced government fiscal burden and encouraged private investment, it has also exposed consumers to price volatility and limited the scope for intervention, as this has continued to cause pain. Markets, in theory, deliver efficiency, but in practice, they require competition and effective regulation to function properly. Without these, deregulation can simply replace one form of inefficiency with another.
Nigeria does not need to weaken Dangote Refinery; it needs to multiply it. The goal should be to build a competitive refining ecosystem to replace one dominant structure with another. The truth is not far from this, as part of a lasting solution, it requires encouraging new refinery investments, removing bottlenecks for players such as BUA and modular refineries, ensuring transparent crude allocation, providing open access to pipelines and storage infrastructure, and enforcing strong antitrust regulations.
Competition remains the most effective regulator of price, which is sacrosanct and it protects consumers, strengthens supply security, and reduces systemic risk.
This must also be perceived beyond competition, which calls for the government to act strategically. The fact is that when supplying crude to local refineries at discounted or stabilized rates, expanding naira-based transactions, and introducing temporary relief measures during global crises are all viable options that must be put into consideration. Energy is too critical to be left entirely to market forces, especially in a developing economy where millions are highly vulnerable to economic shocks.
It is time that Nigerians understood that the nation’s refining crisis has been decades in the making, and it cannot be solved by a single refinery, no matter how large. If asked, it will be said that this is a fact that can’t be argued. The Dangote Refinery is undoubtedly a turning point, but it will only remain so if it is embedded within broader systemic reform. Otherwise, Nigeria risks replacing one form of dependency with another, from import dependence to domestic concentration.
The question is no longer whether Nigeria can refine crude oil. It can. The real question is whether Nigeria can build a system that ensures fair pricing, competitive markets, consumer protection, and economic resilience, as these are exactly the core answers.
If global conflicts continue to dictate local fuel prices, if monopoly risks go unchecked, and if citizens remain vulnerable despite abundant resources, then the promise of local refining will remain unfulfilled, as it will bring no expected relief.
What is playing out is the well-known fact that in refining, as in democracy, concentration of power is dangerous. And in both, the strongest safeguard remains the same, competition, transparency, and institutions that serve the public interest.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]
KudiWave Technologies Limited has raised questions over the transfer of N750,369,439.04 from its account with PalmPay Limited, seeking clarification on the timing, destination and circumstances surrounding the transaction.
In a statement, on Tuesday, KudiWave said the disputed debit was recorded on July 15, 2026, under the narration “Judicial Adjustment”.
The company said it was not notified of, or did not authorise, the transaction.
According to KudiWave, it had already approached the Federal High Court in Lagos to challenge an earlier order affecting its account.Politics News Service
The company said its application, filed on July 3, sought to set aside the June 29 order and stay its execution.
“The motion was heard on July 13 and adjourned for ruling. Two days later, the N750.37 million was transferred out of the account,” the company said.
KudiWave further stated that PalmPay had been served with the application before the July 15 transaction and did not file a counter-affidavit opposing the application.
The company also raised questions about an earlier movement of funds on July 11, which it said became apparent after access to the account was restored.
According to KudiWave, its account records showed that the funds were moved on July 11 and returned the same day before another transfer was recorded on July 15.
“PalmPay moved the money on July 11 and sent it back that same day. They then took it out again on July 15. When the account was opened, we saw how the money had been moved around while the account was frozen and we were not aware of it,” the company said.
The dispute followed an ex parte order obtained by the Inspector General of Police through officers of the Police Special Fraud Unit in Ikoyi, which placed restrictions on accounts belonging to several parties, including KudiWave, pending investigation.
The restriction was subsequently implemented on KudiWave’s account with PalmPay.
Further proceedings were filed under Suit No. FHC/L/CS/795/2026 before Justice Ibrahim Ahmad Kala of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, in relation to funds standing to KudiWave’s credit.
KudiWave said the court granted an application on June 29.
The company subsequently challenged the order, arguing that it had not been properly served with the processes leading to the decision and had not been effectively brought before the court when the application was heard.
According to KudiWave, Justice Kala considered the company’s subsequent application on July 22 and set aside, vacated and discharged the June 29 order.
The company said the court also directed that the restrictions placed on its account be removed.
KudiWave further stated that the court examined the circumstances surrounding the purported service of the processes and raised questions about whether leaving documents at a gate, without sufficient indication of the company’s specific address, amounted to effective service.
The company quoted the court as describing the circumstances surrounding the service as “very curious”.
KudiWave also said the ruling recognised the court’s inherent power to set aside its own decision where circumstances justify such intervention.
The July 22 ruling came after the July 15 transfer.
KudiWave, however, said the transaction should be considered in the context of the fact that the June 29 order was already being challenged and that its application had been argued before the court two days earlier.
The company has also questioned the destination of the funds.
According to KudiWave, its understanding of the June 29 order was that the identified funds were to be transferred to a designated Police Recovery Account associated with the Police Special Fraud Unit.
The company said its account records instead indicated that the N750,369,439.04 was transferred to an Access Bank business account.
KudiWave said it wants clarification on the identity of the beneficiary, the instruction that authorised the transfer and the basis for the July 11 movement of funds.
“The issue for us is simple. If the order identified a particular account for the funds, there must be a clear explanation of why our records show the money going elsewhere and who ultimately received it,” the company said.
KudiWave said it was seeking a reconciliation of transactions carried out on its account during the restriction period and was considering further legal and regulatory steps in relation to the disputed transactions.
The company also said that, during earlier efforts to resolve the restriction, Barrister Prince Oko, its Company Secretary, met with officers of the Police Special Fraud Unit.
KudiWave alleged that a request for N50 million was made in connection with efforts to remove the restriction and said the company rejected the request.
The allegation has not been independently established and has not been determined by a court.
KudiWave maintained that its concerns do not relate to compliance with lawful court orders but to whether the transactions involving its funds were carried out in accordance with the terms of the relevant judicial directive.
The company said it wants clarification on the July 11 transactions, the subsequent N750,369,439.04 transfer on July 15, the destination of the funds and the circumstances surrounding the transactions.
Credit demand for house purchases by Nigerian households rose to 9.6 index points in the second quarter of 2026 (Q2 2026), indicating increased borrowing for personal home acquisition.
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) disclosed this in its Credit Conditions Survey Report for Q2 2026, which showed an overall increase in credit availability across secured, unsecured and corporate lending during the period.
The apex bank said lenders also recorded lower default rates across major lending categories.
According to the report, credit demand increased to 15.1 index points for secured lending and 15.2 index points for corporate lending, while demand for unsecured lending remained subdued at -1.2 index points.
Within the household segment, consumer loan demand increased to 11.2 index points, while credit for house purchases rose to 9.6 index points.
Mortgage and re-mortgage lending also increased to 13.3 index points, while demand for small business lending to households climbed to 26.4 index points.
For unsecured household credit, demand for overdrafts and personal loans rose to 7.9 index points, while credit card lending declined to -2.0 index points.
In the corporate sector, credit demand expanded across different business categories.
The report showed that demand rose to 26.5 index points among small businesses, 25.5 index points for medium-sized Private Non-Financial Corporations (PNFCs), and 8.9 index points for large PNFCs.
Credit demand from Other Financial Corporations (OFCs), however, remained unchanged at 0.0 index points.
The CBN further reported that commercial banks observed a broad-based decline in default rates across secured and unsecured loans.
Default rates also declined across corporate borrower categories, including small businesses, medium-sized and large PNFCs, as well as OFCs.
The latest figures indicate stronger household and business appetite for credit during the quarter, particularly for housing, consumer needs and small business activities, amid an overall improvement in lending conditions.
Federal Ministry of Finance has halted enforcement of about N680 million in disputed fees imposed by the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) on NICON Insurance Limited and Nigeria Reinsurance Corporation (Nig Re) as part of the ongoing insurance industry recapitalisation exercise.
The Ministry also directed NAICOM to suspend its demand that the two companies transfer their entire recapitalisation funds into an escrow account with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), pending determination of a petition challenging the legality of the charges and the directive.
The intervention followed a July 27, 2026 petition by NICON and Nig Re over what they described as unlawful fees and regulatory demands arising from the implementation of the Nigerian Insurance Industry Reform Act (NIIRA) 2025.
In a letter to the Commissioner for Insurance, Raymond Omachi, permanent secretary, Federal Ministry of Finance, on behalf of Taiwo Oyedele, minister of Finance and coordinating minister of the Economy, requested that NAICOM provide a detailed response and legal justification for the disputed requirements.
The Ministry specifically directed the Commission to suspend enforcement of the contested processing and verification fees, the one per cent Capital Injection Fee, and the directive requiring the companies to transfer their full recapitalisation funds to a CBN escrow account.
The dispute centres on NAICOM’s assessment of a one per cent fee on capital injected by operators, alongside additional processing and verification charges prescribed under Appendix 2 of the Commission’s Minimum Capital Requirement Guidelines.
According to the petition, the combined assessments amounted to N305 million for NICON and N375 million for Nig Re, bringing the disputed charges to N680 million.
The companies are also challenging what they described as an unconstitutional requirement to transfer more than the statutory proportion of their recapitalisation funds to the CBN.
They contend that Section 16(3) of NIIRA 2025 provides for a 10 per cent statutory deposit, and not the transfer of the entire capital injection into an escrow account.
The companies told the Ministry that they had already met the July 31, 2026 recapitalisation deadline.
NICON said it injected N420 billion, while Nig Re injected N30 billion into Mudaraba Term Deposit accounts with Lotus Bank Limited. The companies maintained that the amounts exceeded their adjusted recapitalisation requirements of N16 billion and N28 billion, respectively.
They further stated that they had deposited N42.5 billion and N43.5 billion respectively with the CBN, in compliance with the statutory deposit requirement under Section 16(3) of the new law.
The companies also disclosed that they had made initial payments of N480 million and N75 million, respectively, in fees.
The Finance Ministry’s directive effectively places the disputed charges and escrow requirement on hold while NAICOM is expected to justify the legal and regulatory basis for its actions.
The intervention could have wider implications for the insurance industry’s recapitalisation programme, particularly as operators face regulatory deadlines to strengthen their capital base under the new insurance law.
The controversy also raises questions about the extent to which regulatory guidelines can impose additional financial obligations on operators beyond those expressly provided for under the enabling legislation.
NAICOM is now expected to respond to the Ministry’s request and explain the statutory basis for the one per cent capital injection fee, the additional processing and verification charges, and the requirement for the full capital injection to be transferred into a CBN escrow account.
NUPRC Warns of Counterfeit, AI-Generated Appointment Letters
KudiWave Asks for Clarification over N750m Transfer from PalmPay Account
NCC Reports over 5,000 Fibre Cuts in 6 Months
PalmPay Reinforces Commitment to Youth Empowerment on International Youth Day
ipNX Joins Calls for Innovation-Friendly Ecosystem and Stronger Local Opportunities at Regenesys AI Summit
EFCC Busts NIS Visa Overstay Racket, Uncovers N700m in an Account
Fact-Check: Elon Musk’s “Tesla Pi Phone” is Internet Rumor
NBC Tasks Broadcasting Stations over 2028 DSO Global Deadline
NBC Scraps Annual Digital Access Fee on DSO
Glo Sponsored African Voices to Feature Netflix’s “The Polygamist” Stars
E-Business2 days agoX Replaces Revenue Sharing wit New Creator Rewards Programme
Telecom2 days agoMTN Alerts Subscribers over Fake 25GB Anniversary MTN Data Giveaway
E-Financial2 days agoInterswitch, Temenos Commit to Advancing Nigeria’s Digital Banking Technology
E-Financial2 days agoFG Spent N3.1 Trillion on Domestic Debt Servicing in Q1- DMO
General News2 days agoFake Agency: ICPC Indicts NITDA, Others over Inadequate Due Diligence
General News2 days agoUNESCO Taps Oguamanam,Nigerian Scholar to Advisory Body on Science, Tech Ethics
General News2 days agoTax Reform Built on Taxing Prosperity, Not Poverty– Adedeji
News1 day agoMoove Achieves Unicorn Status With $250m Funding