E-Financial
Tinubu’s 15% Fuel Duty: Taxing Pain in a Broken Economy

By Blaise Udunze
When a nation is bleeding economically, with inflation at historic highs and citizens gasping for survival, one expects government policy to offer relief, not suffocation. Yet, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s approval of a 15 per cent import duty on petrol and diesel does the exact opposite for it taxing pain in a broken economy.

According to a presidential letter dated October 21, 2025, and addressed to the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA), Tinubu directed the immediate implementation of the new import tariff as part of what the government described as a “market responsive import tariff framework.”
Signed by his Private Secretary, Damilotun Aderemi, the memo followed a proposal by the Executive Chairman of the FIRS, Zacch Adedeji, who claimed the measure was part of “ongoing reforms to boost local refining, ensure price stability, and strengthen the naira-based oil economy” in line with the so-called Renewed Hope Agenda.
In theory, it sounds noble with the aim to protect local refineries, promote energy security, and build a self-sustaining oil economy. But in practice, this policy is another dagger in the heart of Nigerians already crushed by the triple burden of fuel inflation, currency collapse, and dwindling purchasing power.
Because let’s face it, you cannot tax your way out of poverty when the people are already too poor to pay for survival.
The New Tariff: A Policy with Pain Written All Over It
Under the directive, importers will now pay a 15 per cent ad-valorem duty on the cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) value of imported petrol and diesel. The government argues that this will “align import costs with domestic market realities” and “protect local producers from unfair pricing.”
But industry data reveal what this truly means at current CIF levels, the new tariff will raise the landing cost of petrol by about N99.72 per litre. In other words, the already painful pump price hovering around N920 per litre in many parts of Nigeria could easily surpass N1,000 per litre within weeks.
This isn’t speculation, it is arithmetic. Depot operators have already sounded the alarm.
“As it is, the price of fuel may go above N1,000 per litre. I don’t know why the government will be adding more to people’s suffering,” one operator lamented in an interview.
Another industry source added, “Some of the importers are working in alignment with Dangote, which is why the last price increase was general. All players raised their prices at once. Without a clear framework to stabilise market forces, this import duty will worsen the hardship faced by consumers.”
So, while the government insists the duty “won’t choke supply or inflate prices beyond sustainable thresholds,” market realities tell a different story. The moment you tax importation of essential energy products in a country that barely refines any petrol domestically, you are effectively taxing the daily lives of millions who depend on that fuel to move, work, and eat.
An Economy Already in Free Fall
Nigeria’s economy today stands on the brink. The naira has lost nearly half its value since mid-2023, driving annual inflation above 34 percent, while food inflation hovers at 40 percent, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). In one of the world’s largest oil producing nations, fuel prices quintupled, increasing more than 514 percent from N175 in May 2023 to N900, transportation costs have skyrocketed with the “agbuero” extortion compounding issues, small businesses are collapsing, and households are cutting meals to survive.
When fuel prices rise, everything else follows, from food to transportation, rent, and the cost of living. The import duty therefore becomes a multiplier of misery, cascading through the economy in ways the government either underestimates or deliberately ignores.
Manufacturers who depend on diesel to power their factories will pass the extra cost to consumers. Transporters will raise fares. Traders will hike prices. Schools, hospitals, and logistics companies will all adjust their rates upward.
Within a few months, the 15 percent duty will translate into another round of inflationary spiral, deepening poverty and eroding the value of wages even further.
According to the National Bureau of Statistics, over 133 million Nigerians already live-in multidimensional poverty. While the World Bank’s 139 million estimate translates to roughly six in 10 Nigerians living below poverty line. This new tax could easily push millions more into deeper deprivation.
Protecting Local Refineries or Creating a Monopoly?
The government justifies this new tariff as a way to “protect local refineries.” But this explanation exposes the deeper structural danger that Nigeria may be walking straight into a private monopoly in the petroleum sector with Dangote Refinery as the ultimate winner.
While protecting local industry is a legitimate policy goal, doing so without ensuring fair competition is economic suicide. The reality today is that Dangote Refinery dominates the refining landscape both in size and political influence.
Most of the smaller modular refineries in the Niger Delta are struggling to start production due to lack of crude supply, high financing costs, and regulatory uncertainty. The government’s import duty, therefore, does not create a level playing field; it simply tilts the market decisively in favour of Dangote.
If importers are taxed heavily while one giant refinery backed by political access and incentives controls the supply chain, the result is a monopoly, not a free market. And when one player dominates fuel production and pricing in a country of over 200 million people, the economy is at his mercy.
Dangote could dictate wholesale prices, influence market supply, and quietly shape government policy, all under the banner of “local protection.” Already, marketers allege that the last round of price increases was coordinated across the board, hinting at a shadow monopoly forming in plain sight.
This is dangerous for any economy, but for Nigeria where corruption and patronage distort every policy, it is catastrophic.
Energy Security Built on Fragile Foundations
The FIRS memo to the President claimed that the new tariff aims to “strengthen local refining capacity and ensure affordable supply.” But local refining remains largely aspirational.
As of today, Nigeria still imports nearly all its petrol, despite having four state owned refineries that are perpetually moribund. The Dangote Refinery, although a technical marvel, is still struggling to achieve full-scale petrol output and relies on imported crude for much of its operations.
The modular refineries, which were supposed to fill the gap, are barely surviving. Without access to crude oil feedstock often monopolised by larger operators, they cannot compete.
So, who exactly is being protected by this policy?
Certainly not the small modular refineries in Edo, Bayelsa, or Rivers. Not the ordinary Nigerian who will now pay N1,000 for a litre of fuel. Not even the struggling logistics sector, already crippled by high energy costs.
The only entity that benefits is a dominant private player who can withstand the short-term shock and then profit massively once competitors are priced out.
Policy Contradictions and Economic Disconnect
The tragedy of this decision lies not only in its cruelty but in its confusion. The same administration that preaches “ease of doing business” and “market freedom” is imposing tariffs that stifle competition and hurt consumers.
When President Tinubu removed fuel subsidy in May 2023, he promised that “subsidy is gone” and that market forces would drive fair pricing. But over a year later, Nigerians have learned that what replaced subsidy is not a free market but it is a managed monopoly, backed by selective protectionism and opaque pricing.
The contradiction is stark. You cannot remove subsidies on one hand and then impose punitive tariffs on the other. You cannot preach deregulation while protecting a single dominant player.
This isn’t market reform; it is economic confusion disguised as policy innovation.
The Human Cost: Everyday Nigerians Paying the Price
For the ordinary Nigerians, the macroeconomics of import tariffs mean little. What matters is survival.
A family man who spends N2,000 daily on transport now faces N3,000. A small business owner running a diesel generator must now budget twice as much for power. Food vendors, farmers, delivery riders, all are trapped in a cycle of rising costs and shrinking incomes.
Each increase in fuel price is another wound to the working class. And when government justifies it with lofty phrases like “energy security” and “local capacity protection,” it insults the intelligence of citizens who know that their suffering funds elite comfort.
The average Nigerian no longer trusts policy announcements because they have learned that every “reform” means more hardship.
Inflationary Tsunami Ahead
Economic experts have already warned that this new import duty could ignite a fresh wave of inflation. Since transportation is a key cost component in nearly every sector, a 15 percent increase in fuel import costs will ripple through the entire economy.
Analysts at SBM Intelligence estimate that transport fares could rise by another 25–30 percent, while food inflation could easily cross 45 percent by early 2026 if the policy is not reversed.
This isn’t mere speculation. We have been here before. After subsidy removal in 2023, inflation jumped from 22 percent to 34 percent within months. The difference now is that citizens have exhausted their coping mechanisms.
When people can no longer eat, they revolt. The Nigerian state risks pushing its citizens to that breaking point.
Killing Local Competition Before It is Born
Ironically, while the government claims to be “protecting local refining,” this policy will likely kill smaller refineries before they gain traction.
Most modular refineries were financed by private capital at high interest rates. They need steady cash flow and competitive margins to survive. But when the government grants one mega-refinery privileged protection and imposes heavy duties on imports, it destroys the business case for smaller players.
No investor will finance modular refineries if the regulatory environment favours one company. And when competition dies, innovation dies with it.
Nigeria could have built a diversified refining ecosystem, with multiple regional players supplying local markets and driving down costs. Instead, it is creating a single industrial empire whose influence will dwarf even that of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC).
That is not industrial policy. It is economic feudalism.
A Mirage of Regional Price Comparisons
The government argues that even with the new tariff, Nigeria’s pump prices would remain below regional averages: N964 per litre compared to Senegal’s $1.76, Côte d’Ivoire’s $1.52, and Ghana’s $1.37.
But this comparison is disingenuous. Those countries have stable power grids, working public transportation, and better social safety nets. Nigerians don’t.
In a nation where fuel directly powers homes, businesses, and schools due to epileptic electricity supply, any increase in fuel price hits far harder. Comparing Nigeria to Senegal or Ghana ignores the structural poverty and infrastructure decay that amplify every price shock.
It is like comparing a man who walks barefoot to another who drives a car and both are on the road, but one feels every stone.
Taxing Misery in the Name of Reform
Policies like this expose the moral blindness of governance in Nigeria. They treat citizens as economic statistics, not human beings.
The government sees fuel as a fiscal problem to be taxed, not a lifeline that millions depend on. It assumes that raising revenue justifies raising suffering.
But no reform can succeed if it crushes the very people it is meant to uplift.
Even from a fiscal standpoint, this duty will not deliver the revenue the government expects. Higher pump prices will reduce demand, encourage smuggling, and fuel black-market trading. The result will be less revenue, more inflation, and higher corruption.
Policy Alternatives That Make Sense
If the goal is truly to strengthen local refining and energy security, there are better, smarter paths to take.
- Provide access to crude oil for modular refineries under transparent, fair terms.
- Offer tax incentives for local refiners, not punitive import tariffs that hurt consumers.
- Encourage competition through regulatory equity, not protectionism.
- Invest in energy infrastructure, including pipelines, storage, and distribution to reduce logistics costs.
- Reform the power sector so that industries are not forced to rely on diesel for survival.
Nigeria doesn’t need more taxes; it needs intelligent policies that balance protection with affordability.
The Politics of Pain
Let’s be clear, this 15 percent duty is as political as it is economic. It serves powerful business interests cloaked in nationalist rhetoric.
Tinubu’s government has consistently framed hardship as “sacrifice” for a better future. But when sacrifice becomes perpetual, it ceases to be patriotic, it becomes exploitation.
The political cost of this decision could be severe. Nigerians who tolerated subsidy removal with the promise of reform may not tolerate another shock that pushes them into darkness.
Already, discontent is growing. Labour unions are preparing for protests, civil society groups are calling for reversal, and the opposition is mobilising public anger.
If unchecked, this could become the defining crisis of the Tinubu presidency as a symbol of reform gone wrong.
The Road Not Taken
There was an opportunity to rebuild Nigeria’s energy sector through inclusive, transparent reforms. The government could have used the subsidy savings to fix refineries, support modular operators, and invest in renewables.
Instead, it has chosen the easy route by taxing more, explaining less, and hoping for miracles.
But the laws of economics are unforgiving. You cannot squeeze revenue from an economy that is shrinking. You cannot build energy security on policies that destroy purchasing power. You cannot claim to protect the poor by enriching monopolies.
A Nation at the Crossroads
President Tinubu’s 15 percent fuel import duty is not just a fiscal measure, it is a moral test of governance.
It asks whether the Nigerian state still sees its people as citizens or merely as consumers to be taxed. Whether “Renewed Hope” means renewed hardship. Whether government policy can still reflect empathy, not elitism.
As petrol edges beyond N1,000 per litre and diesel costs strangle businesses, Nigerians are once again left to bear the consequences of decisions they did not make and cannot afford.
History will judge this administration not by its slogans, but by how it handled the suffering of its people.
And if the story of this fuel duty becomes the story of another failed reform of monopolies masquerading as markets, and citizens sacrificed for profit, then “Renewed Hope” will be remembered not as a promise, but as a warning.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional writes from Lagos, can be reached via: [email protected]
E-Financial
Angst as FG Demands 7.5 Percent VAT on Mobile Bank Transfers, USSD

Nigerians will begin paying a 7.5 percent Value Added Tax (VAT) on selected banking services, including mobile bank transfers and USSD transactions, from January 19, 2026, following a new regulatory directive backed by the Federal Government.

The development was disclosed in a notice sent to customers on Wednesday by Moniepoint, informing users of the impending implementation of the VAT regime on certain electronic banking charges.
According to the notice, the directive was issued by tax authorities mandating financial institutions to begin the collection and remittance of VAT.
Part of the notice read: “We would like to inform you of an upcoming government-endorsed regulatory change regarding Value Added Tax (VAT).
“From Monday, 19 January 2026, we are required to collect a 7.5% VAT, to be remitted to the Nigerian Revenue Service (NRS) (formerly known as the Federal Inland Revenue Service).”
Moniepoint said the tax would apply to “certain banking services”, including “electronic banking charges such as mobile banking fees (transfers), USSD transaction fees and card issuance fee”.
The company, however, clarified that not all banking transactions would attract the tax.
“Services that DO NOT attract VAT include: interest on deposits and savings,” the notice read.
Moniepoint also distanced itself from responsibility for the new charges, saying the deductions were not a price increase by the company.
“The NRS has communicated a deadline for 19th January 2026 for all financial institutions — commercial banks, microfinance banks and electronic money transfer operators — to start collecting and remitting VAT. VAT applies only to banking or service fees, not interest,” it said.
Customers were also informed that the deductions would be clearly itemised, as “VAT charge will appear separately on your transaction reports and statements”.
The new VAT enforcement is expected to affect millions of Nigerians who rely daily on mobile banking platforms and USSD services for financial transactions.
“This is not a price increase by Moniepoint. Moniepoint is required to collect and remit VAT to the Nigerian Revenue Service (NRS).
E-Financial
NGX lists 3.156bn UBA shares, boosting capital to N513Bn

Nigerian Exchange Limited (NGX) admitted 3.156 billion additional ordinary shares of United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc to its Daily Official List on January 12, following the bank’s successful rights issue at N50 per 50k share, deepening market liquidity and elevating capital base beyond CBN’s N500 billion international authorisation threshold.

UBA Group Managing Director/CEO Oliver Alawuba
UBA Group Managing Director/CEO Oliver Alawuba hailed the listing as evidence of strong investor trust in the bank’s strategy, noting the N158 billion raise – building on N239 billion from a 2024 public offer – now totals N513 billion to fuel Pan-African expansion across 20 countries plus the UK, US, France and UAE.
The listing, confirmed by NGX’s Head of Issuer Regulation Godstime Iwenkehai, allocates one new share for every 13 held, supporting UBA’s service to 45 million customers and 25,000 employees through retail, commercial and tech-driven banking.
Alawuba pledged the fresh capital would enhance stakeholder value and global reach.
E-Financial
The Missing Pieces in Nigeria’s Banking Recapitalisation

By Blaise Udunze
Nigeria’s economy will be experiencing yet another round of reform; after the new tax implementation, the banking sector recapitalisation exercise will begin within less than three months until the March 31, 2026, deadline. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Olayemi Cardoso, disclosed that 27 banks have tapped the capital market via public offers and rights issues.

The figures show that of 21 the 37 commercial, merchant, and non-interest banks in the country have met or exceeded the revised minimum capital thresholds of N500 billion for internationally authorised banks, N200 billion for national banks, N50 billion for regional banks, and N10-20 billion for non-interest banks. With the developments above, policymakers are betting that stronger balance sheets will help banks withstand macroeconomic shocks, finance growth, and restore confidence in the financial system. On the surface, the logic is sound, capital matters. But history warns us that capital alone is not a cure-all.
Nigeria has been here before, going by the 2004-2005 era of the then-governor of CBN, Charles Soludo, whose banking consolidation dramatically reduced the number of banks from 89 to 25 and created national champions. Yet barely five years later, the system was back in crisis, requiring regulatory intervention, bailouts, and the creation of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) to absorb toxic assets. The lesson here is clear, which revealed that recapitalisation that ignores structural weaknesses merely postpones failure.
If the current exercise is to succeed, the CBN must use it not only to raise capital but to repair the deeper fault lines that have long undermined the stability, credibility, and effectiveness of Nigeria’s banking sector.
More Capital isn’t Always Better Capital
The first and most critical issue is the quality of capital being raised. Disclosures made by the banks have shown that the combined capital base of about N5.142 trillion is already locked in by lenders across the different licence categories. Bigger numbers on paper mean little if the capital is not genuinely loss-absorbing. In past recapitalisation cycles, concerns emerged about funds being raised through related parties, short-term borrowings disguised as equity, or complex arrangements that ultimately recycled the same risks back into the system.
This time, the CBN must insist on transparent, verifiable sources of capital. Every naira raised should be traceable, free from conflicts of interest, and capable of absorbing real losses in a downturn. Otherwise, recapitalisation becomes an accounting exercise rather than a resilience-building one.
Why Corporate Governance Remains the Achilles’ Heel
Perhaps the most persistent weakness in Nigeria’s banking sector is corporate governance failure. Many bank crises have not been caused by macroeconomic shocks alone, but by poor board oversight, insider abuse, weak risk culture, and excessive executive power.
Recapitalisation provides a rare regulatory leverage point. The CBN should use it to reset governance standards, not just capital thresholds. Boards must be independent in substance, not just in form. Being one of the critical aspects of the banking challenge, insider lending rules should be enforced without exception. Risk committees in every financial institution must be empowered, not sidelined by dominant executives.
Without the apex bank fixing governance, new capital risks become fresh fuel for old excesses.
The Unresolved Burden of Non-Performing Loans (NPLs)
Data from the CBN’s latest macroeconomic outlook showed that the banking industry’s Non-Performing Loans ratio climbed to an estimated 7 percent, pushing the sector above the prudential ceiling of 5 percent. Nigeria’s banking sector continues to be drowned with high volumes and recurring non-performing loans (NPLs), and this is often concentrated in sectors such as oil and gas, power, and government-linked projects. Though with the trend of events, one may say that regulatory forbearance has helped maintain surface stability in the sector, no doubt it has also masked underlying vulnerabilities.
The truth is that a credible recapitalisation exercise must confront this reality head-on. Loan classification and provisioning standards should reflect economic truth, not regulatory convenience. Banks should not be allowed to carry impaired assets indefinitely while presenting healthy balance sheets to investors and the public.
Transparency around asset quality is not a threat to stability; it is a foundation for it.
How Foreign Exchange Risk Quietly Amplifies Financial Shocks
Few risks have damaged bank balance sheets in recent years as severely as foreign exchange volatility. Many banks continue to carry significant FX mismatches, borrowing short-term in foreign currency while lending long-term to clients with naira revenues.
During periods of FX adjustment, these mismatches can rapidly erode capital, no matter how well-capitalised a bank appears on paper. Recapitalisation must therefore be accompanied by tighter supervision of FX exposure, stronger disclosure requirements, and realistic stress testing that assumes adverse currency scenarios, not best-case outcomes.
Ignoring FX risk is no longer an option in a structurally import-dependent economy.
Concentration Risk and the Narrow Credit Base
Another long-standing weakness is excessive concentration risk. A disproportionate share of bank lending is often tied to a small number of large corporates or government-related exposures. While this may appear safe in the short term, it creates systemic vulnerability when those sectors face stress.
At the same time, the real economy, particularly SMEs and productive sectors, remains underfinanced because, over the years, Nigeria’s banks faced significant concentration risk, particularly in the oil and gas sector and in foreign currency exposure, while grappling with a narrow credit base characterised by limited lending to the private sector. This is due to high credit risk and tight monetary policy. Owing to this trend, recapitalisation should therefore be in alignment with policies that encourage credit diversification, improved credit underwriting, and smarter risk-sharing mechanisms, and not the other way round.
Therefore, it will be right to say that banks that grow larger but remain narrowly exposed do not strengthen the economy; they amplify its fragilities.
Risk Management in a Volatile Economy
The recurring inflation shocks, interest-rate swings, fiscal pressures, and external shocks are frequent features, not rare events, which show that Nigeria is not a low-volatility environment.
Currently, the Nigerian banking sector’s financial performance and investment returns are equally affected by various risks, including credit, liquidity, market, and operational risks.
Today, many banks still operate risk models that assume stability rather than disruption. Time has proven that risk management is essential for mitigating these risks and ensuring stability and profitability.
The apex bank must ensure that the recapitalisation process mandates robust, Nigeria-specific stress testing, and banks must demonstrate resilience under severe but plausible scenarios. This includes sharp currency depreciation, interest-rate spikes and sovereign stress. It must evolve from a compliance function to a strategic discipline.
Transparency and Financial Reporting
Investors, depositors, and analysts must be able to understand banks’ true financial positions without navigating a lack of transparent disclosures or creative accounting. Hence, public trust in the banking sector depends heavily on credible financial reporting.
The CBN should use recapitalisation to strengthen the International Financial Reporting Standard enforcement, disclosure standards, and audit quality. In championing this course, banks’ financial statements should clearly reflect capital adequacy, asset quality, related-party transactions, and off-balance-sheet exposures. Transparency is to enable confidence, not about exposing weakness.
Regulatory Consistency and Credibility
Policy credibility has been one of the greatest challenges for Nigeria’s financial regulators.
Abrupt changes, unclear timelines, and inconsistent enforcement undermine investor confidence and weaken reform outcomes.
Recapitalisation must be governed by clear rules, predictable timelines, and consistent enforcement. Both domestic and foreign investors need assurance that the rules of the game will not change midstream. Regulatory credibility is itself a form of capital.
Consumer Protection and Banking Ethics
While recapitalisation focuses on banks’ balance sheets, the public experiences banking through fees, service quality, dispute resolution, and ethical conduct. Persistent complaints about hidden charges and poor customer treatment erode trust in the system and a stronger banking sector must also be a fairer and more accountable one. It must be noted that strengthening consumer protection frameworks alongside recapitalisation will help rebuild public confidence and reinforce financial inclusion goals.
Too Big to Fail and How to Resolve Failure
Looking at what is obtainable in the system, larger, better-capitalised banks can also become systemically dangerous if failure resolution frameworks are weak. This requires that recapitalisation should therefore be accompanied by credible plans for resolving distressed banks without destabilising the entire system or resorting to taxpayer-funded bailouts, which has been the norm in the Nigerian banking sector today. The cynic might say that recapitalisation simply made big banks bigger and empowered dominant shareholders. However, a more prospective approach invites all stakeholders, including regulators, customers, civil society and bankers themselves, to co-design the next chapter of Nigerian banking; one that balances scale with inclusion, profitability with impact, and stability with innovation.
Clear resolution mechanisms reduce moral hazard and reinforce market discipline.
A Moment That Must Not Be Wasted
Recapitalisation is not merely a financial exercise; it is a governance and trust reset opportunity. If the CBN focuses solely on capital numbers, Nigeria risks repeating a familiar cycle of apparent stability followed by crisis.
The banking sector can lay a solid foundation that truly supports economic transformation if recapitalization is used to address governance failures, asset quality, FX risk, transparency, and regulatory credibility.
Nigeria does not just need bigger banks. It needs better banks, institutions that are resilient, transparent, well-governed, and trusted by the public they serve. Hence, it must be a system that creates a more robust buffer against shocks and positions Nigerian banking as a global competitor capable of funding a $1 trillion economy, as the case may be.
This recapitalisation moment must be about building durability, not just size. The cost of missing that opportunity would be far greater than the cost of getting it right.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]
E-Financial3 days agoWema Bank Upgrades ALAT Banking App
General News3 days agoFirm Launches AI-powered Platform to Simplify New Tax Laws
Telecom3 days agoX Suspends Twitter Account for Rules Violation
General News2 days agoPalmPay, Premier Cool to Reward 10,000 Nigerians with ₦100m in “10k for 10k Campaign”
News2 days agoNigeria, Others Lag Behind as Egypt Tops Africa in AI Readiness
E-Business3 days agoStudy Reveals 88.5% of Phishing Attacks Focus on Stealing Account Credentials
E-Financial2 days agoEcobank Joins Trillion-naira Club for the First Time in 20 Years
E-Business2 days agoKaspersky Warns Telecom Threats from 2025 will Carry into 2026 as New Technology Adds New Risk



















