Editorial: Tinubu's Shameful Capitulation to Dangote

President Bola Tinubu’s decision to accept the resignations of the heads of Nigeria’s petroleum regulators in the heat of a public clash with Aliko Dangote marks a dispiriting moment for Nigerian governance, that may yet prove to be one of the most consequential, and troubling; signals of his presidency. The forced exits of the heads of the petroleum regulators may be dressed up as in the official language of “continuity” and “professional replacements,” but the optics and the stench are unmistakable: when Africa’s richest man raised his voice, the Nigerian state bent over backwards and folded at the feet of concentrated wealth. 

 

This was not a routine reshuffle. It followed an unusually public, personal and bruising confrontation in which Dangote accused the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) of sabotaging domestic refining and went further to allege personal corruption against its chief executive, Farouk Ahmed. Within days, the regulator was gone. Process may still grind on at the ICPC and in parliament, but politically the message has already landed.

 

For a president who campaigned on institutional reform and the rule of law, this sequence should give pause. Regulators exist precisely to say “no” to powerful interests when policy, competition or public interest demands it. When their removal coincides so neatly with pressure from a dominant market actor, independence begins to look conditional. Against this backdrop, the public battering of a regulator; complete with personal allegations, looks less like principled accountability and more like muscular lobbying. Worse, the presidency’s response signals that regulatory independence is conditional: enforce rules that inconvenience a dominant player and risk public shaming, petitions, and political decapitation.

 

None of this is to deny Dangote’s achievement or Nigeria’s desperate need for domestic refining capacity. The Dangote Refinery is a monumental private investment, long overdue in a country that exports crude only to import fuel at ruinous cost. Dangote is entitled—indeed expected—to challenge regulations he believes are flawed. But entitlement to argue is not entitlement to prevail by force of wealth, reputation or spectacle.

 

The substance of the dispute matters. At its core is a regulatory disagreement over import licenses and proposed duties on refined products; policies with real consequences for competition. At a press conference on Sunday, at the Dangote Petroleum Refinery, Dangote said imports were being used to checkmate domestic potential, creating jobs abroad while Nigerians struggle to industrialize. He claimed that import licenses covering about 7.5 billion liters of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) had been issued for the first quarter of 2026, even as local refiners struggle to operate profitably. Regulators have warned that blanket restrictions could entrench monopoly power, raise prices in the long run, and squeeze out smaller players. These are legitimate concerns. A refinery that becomes too big to regulate risks replacing public inefficiency with private dominance.

 

Let us be clear here because facts matter more than volume. Data published by the NMDPRA show that in November, Dangote’s refinery supplied an average of 23.52 million liters of petrol per day, well below its planned 35 million liters. Diesel evacuation averaged 5.596 million liters daily. These are not trivial gaps; they are material shortfalls. The regulator also reported that state-owned refineries remain largely comatose, modular refiners operate unevenly (62%–91% utilization, some inactive), and national fuel sufficiency remains precarious - 17 days for petrol, 35 for diesel, 15 for aviation fuel, and eight for cooking gas. This is vulnerability, not vindication.

 

What crossed a line was not criticism, but method. Personalized allegations, global megaphones, and insinuations about family finances do not strengthen accountability; they corrode it. Allegations of corruption should be tested by evidence and due process, not trial by press conference. When a billionaire frames a policy disagreement as moral delinquency, the chilling effect on regulators is obvious. Who, in future, will resist pressure knowing that reputations can be shredded overnight?

 

Here, President Tinubu’s role is pivotal, and disappointing. Tinubu’s error is not choosing between an industrialist and a bureaucrat; it is choosing noise over process. Disputes belong in evidence, audits, and courts; not press conferences and power plays. A refinery of national importance does not require regulatory deference; it requires regulatory rigor. A stronger response would have been to ring-fence the institutions: insist on investigations running their course, defend the principle of regulatory autonomy, and make clear that policy is not set by press releases, however influential their author. Instead, by presiding over abrupt exits and swift nominations, the presidency has blurred the line between oversight and surrender.

 

This is where balance matters. Tinubu did not invent Nigeria’s frail institutions, nor is Dangote the first tycoon to test them. The oil sector has long been a graveyard of captured regulators, revolving doors and political interference. Yet reformist moments are judged by how leaders behave under pressure, not when the waters are calm. On this test, the presidency appears to have chosen expediency over principle. The danger is systemic. If regulators learn that standing firm against dominant private interests shortens careers, rational behavior follows: caution, accommodation, silence. Oversight becomes performative. Markets warp. Investors without political heft retreat. And the state quietly concedes its authority to those best able to shout.

 

Nigeria needs industrial champions, but it also needs rules that apply even to champions. Monopolies dressed up as patriotism are still monopolies. Private capital can build refineries; only public institutions can safeguard competition and the consumer interest. Tinubu still has time to correct course: to reaffirm regulatory independence, protect due process, and ensure that no single businessman; however successful, sets the terms of governance. Leadership is not tested by applause from the powerful, but by restraint in the face of pressure. When wealth speaks, systems do shake. The task of statesmanship is to ensure they do not bend.