Connect with us

General News

REVEALED: How Nigeria’s Energy Crisis is Driven by Debt and Global Forces

Published

on

Kindly share this post

By Blaise Udunze

For months, Nigerians have argued in circles. Aliko Dangote has been blamed by default. They have accused his refinery of monopoly power, of greed, of manipulation. They have pointed out the rising price of petrol and demanded a villain.

When examined closely, the truth is uncomfortable, layered, and deeply geopolitical because the real story is not at the fuel pump and this is what Nigerians have been missing unknowingly. The truth is that the real story is happening behind closed doors, across continents, inside financial systems most citizens never see and the actors will prefer that the people are kept in the dark. And once you see it, the outrage shifts. The questions deepen. The implications expand far beyond Nigeria.

In October 2024, it was obvious and clear that the world would have noticed that Nigeria made a move that should have dominated global headlines, but didn’t. Clearly, this was when the government of President Bola Tinubu introduced a quiet but radical policy, which is the Naira-for-Crude. The idea was simple and revolutionary. Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer, would allow domestic refineries to purchase crude oil in naira instead of U.S. dollars. On the surface, it looked like economic reform. In reality, it was something far more consequential. It was a challenge to the global financial order.

For decades, oil has been traded almost exclusively in dollars, reinforcing the dominance of the United States in global finance. By attempting to refine its own oil using its own currency, Nigeria was not just making a policy adjustment. It was testing the boundaries of economic sovereignty. And in today’s world, sovereignty, especially when it touches money, debt, and energy, comes with consequences.

What followed was not loud. There were no emergency broadcasts or dramatic policy reversals. Instead, the response was quiet, bureaucratic, and devastatingly effective just to undermine the processes. Nigeria produces over 1.5 million barrels of crude oil per day, though pushing for 3 million by 20230, yet when the Dangote Refinery requested 15 cargoes of crude for September 2024 what it received was only six from the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Ltd (NNPC), which means its yield for a refinery with such capacity will be low if nothing is done. Come to think of it, between January and August 2025, Nigerian refineries collectively requested 123 million barrels of domestic crude but received just 67 million, which by all indications showed a huge gap. It is a contradiction and at the same time, laughable that an oil-producing nation could not supply its own refinery with its own oil.

So where was the crude going? The answer exposes a deeper, more uncomfortable truth about Nigeria’s economic reality. The crude was being sold on the international market for dollars. Those dollars were then used, almost immediately, to service Nigeria’s growing mountain of external debt. Loans owed to the same institutions, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank had to be paid, which are the same institutions applauding this government. Nigeria was not prioritizing domestic industrialization; it was prioritizing debt repayment.

And the scale of that debt is no longer abstract. Nigeria’s total debt stock is now projected to rise from N155.1 trillion to N200 trillion, following an additional $6 billion loan request by President Tinubu, hurriedly approved by the Senate. At an exchange rate of N1,400 to the dollar, that single loan adds N8.4 trillion to a debt stock that already stood at N146.69 trillion at the end of 2025. This is not just a fiscal statistic. It is the central pressure shaping every major economic decision in the country.

On paper, the government can point to rising revenue, improving foreign exchange inflows, and stronger fiscal discipline as witnessed when the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Olayemi Cardoso, always touted the foreign reserves growth. But a closer review of those numbers reveals a harsher reality. Nigeria is exporting its most valuable resource, converting it into dollars, and sending those dollars straight back out to creditors. The crude leaves. The dollars come in. The dollars leave again. And the cycle repeats.

This is not growth. This is a treadmill powered by debt. Let us not forget that in the middle of that treadmill sits a $20 billion refinery, built to solve Nigeria’s energy dependence, now trapped within the very system it was meant to escape.

By 2025, the contradiction had become impossible to ignore, which is a fact. This is because how can this be explained that the Dangote Refinery, designed to reduce reliance on imports, was increasingly dependent on them. The narrative is that in 2024, Nigeria imported 15 million barrels of crude from America, which is disheartening to mention the least. More troubling is that by 2025, that number surged to 41 million barrels, a 161 percent increase. By mid-2025, approximately 60 percent of the refinery’s feedstock was coming from American crude. As of early 2026, Nigerian crude accounted for only about 30 to 35 percent, which was actually confirmed by Aliko Dangote.

The visible contradiction in this situation is that the refinery built to free Nigeria from dollar dependence was running largely on dollar-denominated imports. Not because the oil did not exist locally, but because the system, shaped by debt obligations and global financial structures, made it more practical to export crude for dollars than to refine it domestically, which leads us to several other covert concerns.

Faced with this troubling reality, there is one major issue that still needs to be answered. This is why Dangote pushed back by filing a N100 billion lawsuit against the NNPC and major oil marketers. He further accused the parties involved of failing to prioritize domestic refining. For a brief moment, one will think that the confrontation, as it appeared, was underway is one that could redefine the balance between state control and private industrial ambition, but these expectations never saw the light of day.

Yes, it never saw the light of day because on July 28, 2025, the lawsuit was quietly withdrawn. No press conferences. No public explanation. No confirmed settlement. Just silence.

There are only a few plausible or credible explanations. As a practice and well-known in the country, institutional pressure may have made continued confrontation untenable. A strategic compromise may have been reached behind closed doors. Or the realities of the system itself may have made victory impossible, regardless of the merits of the case. None of these scenarios suggests a system operating with full autonomy or aligned national interest. All of them point to constraints, political, economic, or structural, that extend far beyond a single company.

Then came the shock that changed everything.

On February 28, 2026, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting a channel through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply flows. Prices surged past $100 per barrel. Global markets entered crisis mode. Supply chains are fractured. Countries dependent on Middle Eastern fuel suddenly had nowhere to turn.

And they turned to Nigeria. Nations like South Africa, Ghana, and Kenya began seeking fuel supplies from the Dangote Refinery. The same refinery that had been starved of crude, forced into dollar-denominated imports, and entangled in domestic disputes suddenly became the most strategically important energy asset on the African continent.

Nigeria did not plan for this. It did not negotiate for this. With this development, the world had no choice but simply run out of options, and Lagos became the fallback.

And then, almost immediately, attention shifted. This swiftly prompted in early 2026, a United States congressional report to recommend applying pressure on Nigeria’s trade relationships within Africa. Shortly after, on March 16, 2026, the United States launched a Section 301 trade investigation into multiple economies, including Nigeria. This is not a sanction, but it is the legal foundation for one. At the same time, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which had provided duty-free access to U.S. markets for decades, was allowed to expire in 2025 without renewal.

The sequence is difficult to ignore. As Nigeria’s strategic importance rose, so did external scrutiny. As its potential for regional energy leadership increased, so did the instruments of economic pressure.

To understand why, you must look at the system itself. The global economy runs on the U.S. dollar, which the Iranian government tried to scuttle by implementing a policy that requires oil cargo tankers being transported via the Strait of Hormuz to be made in Yuan. Most countries need dollars to trade, to import essential goods, to access global markets. The infrastructure that enforces this is the SWIFT financial network, which connects banks across the world. Control over this system confers enormous power. Countries that step too far outside it risk exclusion, and exclusion, in modern terms, means economic paralysis.

Nigeria’s attempt to trade crude in naira was not just a policy experiment. It was a subtle deviation from a system that rewards compliance and punishes independence. The response was not military. It did not need to be. It was structural. Limit domestic supply. Reinforce dollar dependence. Ensure that even attempts at independence remain tethered to the existing order.

And all the while, the debt clock continues to tick. N155.1 trillion.

That number is not just a fiscal burden. It is leverage. It shapes policy. It influences decisions and it also determines priorities, which tells you that when a nation is deeply indebted, its room to maneuver shrinks. In all of this, one thing that must be understood is that choices that might favor long-term sovereignty are often sacrificed for short-term stability. Debt does not just demand repayment. It demands alignment.

Back home, Nigerians remain focused on the most visible symptom, which is fuel prices. Unbeknownst to most Nigerians, they argue, protest, and assign blame while the forces shaping those prices include global currency systems, sovereign debt obligations, trade pressures, and geopolitical realignments. The price at the pump is not the cause. It is the consequence.

Nigeria now stands at an intersection defined not by scarcity, but by contradiction. What is more alarming is that it produces vast amounts of crude oil, yet struggles to supply its own refinery. It earns more in dollar terms, yet its citizens feel poorer. It builds infrastructure meant to ensure independence, yet operates within constraints that reinforce dependence. This is not a failure of resources and this is because there is a conflict or tension between what Nigeria wants, which reflects its ambition and structure, and between sovereignty and obligation.

And so the questions remain, growing louder with each passing month and might force Nigerians, when pushed to the wall, to begin demanding answers. If Nigeria has the oil, why is it importing crude? Further to this dismay, more questions arise, such as, why is the refinery paying in dollars if Naira-for-crude exists? One will also be forced to ask if the lawsuit had merit, why was it withdrawn without explanation? If revenues are rising, why is hardship deepening? And if Nigeria is merely a developing economy with limited influence, why is it attracting this level of global attention?

These are not abstract questions. They are the pressure points of a system that extends far beyond Nigeria’s borders.

Because this story is no longer just about one country. The reality is that perhaps unbeknownst to many, it is about the future of African economic independence. It is about the structure of global energy markets, the dominance of the dollar and the role of debt in shaping national destiny. Honestly, the question that comes to bear is that if Nigeria, with all its resources and scale, cannot fully align its production with its domestic needs, what does that imply for the rest of the continent?

The next time the conversation turns to petrol prices, something must shift. Because the number on the pump is not where this battle is being fought. It is being fought in allocation decisions, in debt negotiations, in regulatory frameworks, in international financial systems, and in quiet policy moves that rarely make headlines.

The Dangote Refinery is not just an industrial project. It is a test case. A test of whether a nation can truly control its own resources in a world where power is rarely exercised loudly, but always effectively. And right now, that test is still unfolding.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]


Kindly share this post

Ugo Onwuaso is an ICT enthusiast. He believes technology should be used for general good. He holds a Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree from the Lagos state University. Dear Reader, Your support matters. But we believe that technology makes life more exciting and helps improve the lives of people around Nigeria and indeed the world. That is why, we have devoted our energy to independent reportage of technology and finance and how they affect lives. Our incisive and analytical view of how technology news affects the daily life help individuals and organizations make up their minds. Quality journalism costs money. Today, we're asking that you support us to do more. Kindly support our effort to deliver technology and finance journalism to everyone in the world. Donate as little as N1,000. Bank transfers can be made to: UBA Plc 1017156876 Communication Week Media Ltd

General News

Nigeria Still Paying $36m Yearly for Failed Abuja CCTV Loan- FIJ

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Nigeria is effectively repaying an estimated $36.4 million annually for an Abuja CCTV project that was never fully delivered, with repayments on the Chinese loan expected to run until 2030, according to Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ).

Nigeria Still Paying $36m Yearly for Failed Abuja CCTV Loan- FIJ

The project, officially known as the National Public Security Communication System (NPSCS), was introduced under former president Goodluck Jonathan in 2010 as a major security infrastructure programme for Abuja amid rising bomb attacks and insecurity in the Federal Capital Territory.

The federal government signed a contract valued at about $470 million with ZTE Corporation for the project before securing a $399.5 million loan from China Eximbank to finance most of it.

According to data from AidData, a research lab at the College of William & Mary in the United States that tracks Chinese development finance globally, the loan carries a 20-year maturity period, a seven-year grace period, and a fixed interest rate of 2.5 per cent.

Based on those terms, repayment is expected to continue until approximately 2030.

FIJ cross-referenced these details with the DMO’s documentation of the loan.

In 2021, the DMO published ‘LOANS OBTAINED FROM CHINA EXIM AS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AMOUNTS IN MILLIONS’, where it stated that the FG had paid back $122 million and an interest of $96 million.

FIJ estimated the yearly repayment using a standard loan repayment formula often used for long-term loans like sovereign debt and mortgages.

The method assumes the loan is repaid in equal yearly instalments over a fixed period. Each payment covers part of the original loan and the interest charged on the remaining balance.

As the debt reduces over time, the interest charged also drops, although the total yearly payment stays the same.

Using this model, FIJ treated the $399.5 million loan as repayable over 13 years at an annual interest rate of 2.5 per cent.

This was after factoring in a seven-year grace period within the loan’s 20-year lifespan.

Based on these assumptions, the estimated yearly repayment came to about $36.4 million.

This estimate is only a simplified projection. In reality, sovereign loans are often repaid under more flexible arrangements.

Sometimes, there could be semi-annual payments, interest added during grace periods, or repayment plans where larger payments come later.

FIJ understands that the debt has also become more expensive in naira terms because the loan is denominated in US dollars.

When the loan agreement was signed in 2010, the naira exchanged at roughly N150 to $1 in the official market, according to the Central Bank of Nigeria. At that rate, the $399.5 million facility was equivalent to around N59.9 billion.

On Monday, however, the dollar traded above N1,370 at the official market.

Using an exchange rate of N1,371/$, the same $399.5 million obligation is now equivalent to about N547.8 billion.

In effect, the naira value of the debt has increased by roughly N487.9 billion since the loan was signed.

This means the debt burden has grown by more than nine times in naira terms in the past 16 years due largely to the depreciation of the naira against the dollar.

Nigeria is effectively repaying about $36.4 million yearly for the Abuja CCTV project under the loan’s repayment structure.

At the current official exchange rate of roughly N1,371 to the dollar, that yearly repayment translates to about N49.9 billion annually.

When the loan was signed in 2010, however, the naira traded at around N150/$, meaning the same yearly repayment would have cost about N5.5 billion at the time.

The CCTV project has remained controversial since the start of the implementation.

The federal government originally presented the project as a modern surveillance and emergency-response system designed to improve security monitoring across Abuja.

The infrastructure was expected to include city-wide CCTV surveillance, emergency communication systems, command-and-control centres and integrated police communication facilities.

But in 2016, members of the House of Representatives Committee on Police Affairs visited the control centre and found that many installed cameras were either inactive or non-functional.

In 2019, the matter resurfaced when lawmakers asked why Nigeria was still repaying the Chinese loan despite concerns about the operational status of the surveillance infrastructure.

During legislative discussions at the time, Zainab Ahmed, then minister of Finance, stated that the government was still servicing the loan but did not have full information regarding the project’s implementation status. Lawmakers brought the issue back to the fore in April due to insecurity in the Federal Capital Territory.

The issue became the subject of litigation after the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project  (SERAP)sued the Federal Government under the Freedom of Information Act, seeking details of the spending and implementation process.

In 2023, Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the government to disclose information relating to the project, including how the loan was spent and the identities of contractors involved.

On Sunday, the Federal Ministry of Finance had told SERAP, which had urged Taiwo Oyedele to publish details surrounding the project, that, “Records from the Ministry of Police Affairs indicate that while local subcontractors may have been engaged, there is an absence of detailed subcontracting records identifying specific local companies that received funds directly from the Chinese loan.”


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

General News

FG Cancels $717.7m World Bank Power Loan as Electricity Crisis Deepens

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Federal Government has cancelled $717.7 million in undisbursed World Bank intervention financing designed to revive Nigeria’s struggling electricity sector.

FG Cancels $717.7m World Bank Power Loan as Electricity Crisis Deepens

The cancellation followed a formal request by the Federal Government and a joint decision by both parties to discontinue financing under the Power Sector Recovery Performance-Based Operation due to evolving sector realities and the inability to achieve key reform milestones.

The development followed an earlier warning by the Accountant-General of the Federation, Dr. Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, that Nigeria may reject loan facilities from the Bank if delays in approval and disbursement persist, stating that prolonged timelines could undermine the country’s willingness to proceed with such arrangements.

According to documents obtained from the World Bank, the development effectively terminates the remaining portion of a $1.52 billion power sector recovery programme. The cancelled amount represents the entire undisbursed balance remaining under the programme.

“The restructuring will result in the cancellation of the entire undisbursed balance in the amount of $717.7m equivalent, and no further disbursements will be made under the Program following approval of this restructuring,” the bank stated.

The Federal Government developed the Power Sector Recovery Programme as a framework to restore the sector’s financial viability and reduce its fiscal burden on public finances. The programme included plans to progressively eliminate tariff shortfalls, improve operational performance among power sector institutions, and strengthen regulatory oversight and accountability mechanisms.

The loan was approved on June 23, 2020, with original financing of about $752.5 million equivalent to improve electricity supply reliability, strengthen financial sustainability, and enhance accountability across the electricity value chain. Following initial progress, the World Bank approved an Additional Financing package of approximately $763.5 million equivalent on June 9, 2023, which became effective on June 19, 2024, extending the project’s closing date to June 30, 2027.

However, while the parent programme largely achieved its results and successfully disbursed its resources, the additional financing struggled significantly to meet critical reform conditions. High technical, commercial, and collection losses across the distribution segment, combined with inadequate cost recovery, created a recurring mismatch between revenues generated by the sector and its actual operating costs.

The World Bank noted that Nigeria’s electricity sector continues to face deep-rooted structural challenges despite years of reforms and financial support, citing weak distribution performance, transmission bottlenecks, underutilization of available generation capacity, and persistent financial imbalances.

Implementation of the original operation delivered notable results initially, reducing tariff shortfalls by 71 percent between 2019 and 2022 (declining from ₦581 billion to ₦166 billion), while regulatory cost recovery improved from 56 percent to 94 percent.

The anticipated reforms under the newer additional package failed to materialize due to major macroeconomic developments that dramatically altered the operating environment. The liberalisation of Nigeria’s foreign exchange market in June 2023 triggered a sharp depreciation of the naira, leading to a substantial increase in the cost of natural gas used for electricity generation. More than 70 percent of electricity supplied to Nigeria’s national grid is generated using natural gas, which is priced in United States dollars.


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

General News

Fidelity Bank Hits N434.95bn Revenue in Explosive Q1 Growth Surge

Published

on

Kindly share this post

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.

Fidelity Bank Hits N434.95bn Revenue in Explosive Q1 Growth Surge

Fidelity Bank

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.


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

Trending