FCCPC Warns Petrol Marketers Against Exploitative Pricing, Threatens Sanctions

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has issued a stern warning to petroleum marketers across the country, cautioning them against exploitative pricing of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), popularly known as petrol, and vowing to sanction operators found engaging in unfair market practices.

The Commission expressed concern over the continued high retail price of petrol despite recent improvements in global crude oil prices and local supply conditions, insisting that consumers should begin to benefit from changing market realities.

The warning comes amid growing public dissatisfaction over the cost of fuel, which has remained significantly high months after international oil prices stabilised and supply chain disruptions eased.

According to the FCCPC, the sharp increase in petrol prices witnessed earlier this year was largely driven by rising crude oil prices triggered by geopolitical tensions in the Gulf region between April and May. During the period, pump prices of petrol surged to between ₦1,350 and ₦1,500 per litre in many parts of Nigeria, while diesel prices climbed to almost ₦2,000 per litre.

The Commission recalled that before the market disruptions, petrol sold for between ₦800 and ₦900 per litre in February. However, despite relative stability returning to the international oil market and improvements in domestic supply, the average retail price of petrol has remained around ₦1,200 per litre nationwide.

The FCCPC noted that current pricing by some local refineries suggests there should be greater room for downward adjustments in retail pump prices. According to the Commission, several domestic refiners are presently selling petrol at gantry prices ranging between ₦1,025 and ₦1,075 per litre, a development that should ordinarily encourage more competitive pricing among marketers.

While acknowledging that the pricing of petroleum products is influenced by multiple economic variables, including foreign exchange rates, transportation costs, financing expenses, refining costs and distribution logistics, the Commission maintained that these factors do not justify arbitrary or exploitative pricing.

It stressed that the deregulation and liberalisation of Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector do not grant marketers unrestricted freedom to impose excessive prices on consumers.

Speaking on behalf of the Commission, Mr. Bello emphasised that operators in the downstream petroleum industry remain bound by the provisions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, regardless of the liberalised nature of the market.

He said market liberalisation must go hand in hand with fair competition and responsible business conduct, warning that the Commission would not hesitate to investigate any credible allegation of anti-competitive practices or consumer exploitation.

According to him, “Market liberalisation does not diminish businesses’ obligations to compete fairly or consumers’ right to fair treatment. Where credible evidence indicates conduct that undermines competition, exploits consumers or otherwise contravenes the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, the Commission will investigate and take appropriate enforcement action.”

The FCCPC further warned that any evidence of price fixing, collusion among marketers, cartel behaviour or other anti-competitive agreements designed to keep fuel prices artificially high would attract severe regulatory sanctions.

The Commission also called on Nigerians to play an active role in protecting consumer rights by reporting suspicious pricing patterns, misleading price claims and other unfair market practices through its official complaint channels.

Industry observers believe the Commission’s intervention could increase regulatory scrutiny in the downstream petroleum sector, particularly as Nigerians continue to grapple with the rising cost of living and demand greater transparency in fuel pricing.

The FCCPC reiterated its commitment to promoting fair competition, protecting consumers from exploitation and ensuring that the benefits of market liberalisation are reflected in competitive prices rather than excessive profit-taking at the expense of ordinary Nigerians.

FCCPC Warns Petrol Marketers Against Exploitative Pricing, Threatens Sanctions

300 CSOs Mobilise Against Ex-FUOYE VC’s Ambassadorial Nomination Over Sexual Harassment Allegations

Pressure is mounting on the Senate to halt the ambassadorial nomination of former Vice-Chancellor of the Federal University Oye-Ekiti (FUOYE), Prof. Abayomi Sunday Fasina, as more than 300 civil society organisations, backed by prominent rights advocates, have petitioned lawmakers to reject his confirmation over unresolved sexual harassment and abuse of office allegations currently before the courts.

The coalition, which includes former Minister of Education Dr. Oby Ezekwesili, the International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA) Nigeria, Yiaga Africa, Bring Back Our Girls, Enough is Enough (EiE) Nigeria, Women Advocates Research and Documentation Centre (WARDC), Women Aid Collective (WACOL), Project Alert on Violence Against Women, Stand to End Rape (STER), Women in Management, Business and Public Service (WIMBIZ), National Council of Women Societies (NCWS), Women’s Rights Advancement and Protection Alternative (WRAPA), Women at Risk International Foundation (WARIF), Women Consortium of Nigeria (WOCON), Women Environmental Programme (WEP), Baobab for Women’s Human Rights, Transition Monitoring Group (TMG) and several others, urged the Senate to suspend Fasina’s confirmation until all pending criminal and civil cases against him are concluded.

In a petition dated June 25, 2026, signed by the Co-convener of Womanifesto, Dr. Abiola Akiyode-Afolabi, the coalition argued that while every citizen enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence, ambassadorial appointments demand individuals of unquestionable integrity because they represent Nigeria’s image and values abroad.

The petition was addressed to Senate President Godswill Akpabio through the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Senator Abubakar Sani Bello, ahead of the screening of ambassadorial nominees.

Copies were also forwarded to the Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu (SAN), and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu.

READ ALSO:

• Police kill four kidnappers, rescue five victims in Lagos-Ogun joint operation
• Trump Claims US Military Ended ‘Slaughter of Christians’ in Nigeria
• PCN Raises Novena University’s Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D) Admission Quota to 120

However, a group known as the FUOYE Progressives, comprising students, alumni and staff members of the university, dismissed the campaign against Fasina, describing it as a politically motivated attempt to derail his nomination.

The group’s spokesperson, Dr. Kehinde Alao, insisted that allegations of sexual harassment and administrative misconduct against the former vice-chancellor had been investigated by the police and two successive FUOYE Governing Councils, both of which reportedly cleared him of wrongdoing.

But the coalition maintained that unresolved allegations bordering on sexual harassment, abuse of office, workplace victimisation, intimidation, human rights violations and retaliatory conduct make Fasina unsuitable for a diplomatic appointment.

“It is trite that an ambassador serves as a representative of a nation’s identity and values. Given this important role, any candidate for an ambassadorial position must embody the highest standards of integrity and impeccable conduct,” the petition stated.

The organisations warned that confirming a nominee facing unresolved criminal and civil proceedings could expose Nigeria to international embarrassment and weaken public confidence in the country’s institutions.

They alleged that one of the sexual harassment claims is backed by a 37-minute audio recording currently forming part of evidence before the National Industrial Court.

Fasina has consistently denied the allegations.

During the controversy that trailed the allegations while serving as Vice-Chancellor, he maintained that he never sexually harassed the complainant and challenged the actions of the ICPC in court.

In April 2025, he secured an interim order from the Federal High Court in Lagos restraining the anti-graft agency from arresting or taking further action against him pending the determination of his suit challenging the investigation.

According to the petitioners, the ICPC later instituted criminal proceedings against Fasina, while separate civil suits involving allegations of sexual harassment and workplace victimisation are pending before the National Industrial Court in Abuja and Ikoyi.

The coalition also cited the judgment in Akingbe v. FUOYE (NICN/AK/58/2018), in which the National Industrial Court held that the university under Fasina’s administration violated the claimant’s right to fair hearing after accusing him of self-plagiarism without proof, awarding N40 million in damages against the institution.

The petitioners argued that the Senate’s constitutional duty extends beyond confirming nominees’ qualifications to assessing their integrity, character, judgment and public credibility.

“The Senate’s constitutional role in the confirmation process is not limited to verifying formal eligibility. It extends to assessing whether a nominee possesses the integrity, character, judgment and public standing necessary to discharge the responsibilities of the office,” the petition added.

The coalition warned that confirming Fasina while criminal proceedings initiated by the ICPC remain unresolved could undermine confidence in Nigeria’s anti-corruption institutions and send the wrong signal about the country’s commitment to tackling sexual harassment, workplace abuse and gender-based violence.

It urged the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs to reject the nomination until all pending legal proceedings have been finally determined.

“The issue before this Committee concerns public confidence in the rule of law. It concerns the credibility of Nigeria’s commitment to accountability, human rights, dignity, gender equality and institutional integrity.

“For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Committee to reject the confirmation of Professor Abayomi Sunday Fasina pending the final determination of all proceedings presently before competent courts,” the petition concluded.

300 CSOs Mobilise Against Ex-FUOYE VC’s Ambassadorial Nomination Over Sexual Harassment Allegations

Trump Claims US Military Ended ‘Slaughter of Christians’ in Nigeria

During a Friday event in Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump made a bold declaration about U.S. military operations in Nigeria. “As you know, we recently struck Nigeria and largely ended the slaughter of great Christian populations,” the President stated. “We hit them very hard. We knocked out their leader. We knocked out their second leader and their third leader.” The President described the situation before the intervention as catastrophic, claiming that “thousands and thousands” of Christians – including women, children, and the elderly – were being “butchered” and “slaughtered” in brutal attacks across the country. According to Trump, the U.S. military action has been so effective that terrorist groups now understand that “if they go further, the attack will be far greater” – effectively deterring future assaults on Christian communities.

The military operation Trump referenced took place on December 25, 2025 – a Christmas Day strike conducted by U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) in coordination with Nigerian security forces. The operation targeted ISIS-West Africa Province (ISWAP) camps in Sokoto State, northwestern Nigeria, with the objective of eliminating terrorist leadership and disrupting planned attacks. The Nigerian government confirmed the joint operation, describing it as a strategic strike based on shared intelligence between U.S. and Nigerian defense forces. While the exact number of casualties remains unclear, multiple terrorist leaders were reportedly eliminated in the operation, marking a significant escalation in U.S. military involvement in Nigeria’s counterterrorism efforts.

While Trump frames the U.S. intervention as a decisive victory against Christian persecution, available evidence paints a far more complex picture. The Islamist insurgency in northern Nigeria – driven by groups like Boko Haram and ISIS-affiliated factions – has devastated communities across religious lines. Data from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) reveals that between 2020 and 2025, there were 389 attacks targeting Christians, resulting in at least 318 deaths, compared to 197 attacks targeting Muslims that caused at least 418 deaths. This data demonstrates that while Christians have indeed been targeted and killed, Muslims have also suffered significant casualties – often at a higher rate – from the same terrorist groups. The violence, therefore, cannot be accurately characterized as a one-sided religious persecution.

READ ALSO:

• PCN Raises Novena University’s Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D) Admission Quota to 120
• US-Iran ceasefire under threat as fresh strikes rock Middle East
• “DPO Gave Kaduna Mob My Wife to Kill” – Husband Alleges Police Complicity in Lynching

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has firmly rejected the genocide narrative promoted by some U.S. politicians and activists. “The characterization of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality,” the Nigerian leader stated, emphasizing that the country’s security challenges – including banditry, herder-farmer conflicts, and jihadist insurgency – affect citizens of all faiths. The administration maintains it is working to address these threats comprehensively, not along religious lines, and has expressed frustration at what it views as an oversimplification of Nigeria’s complex security situation by foreign commentators and policymakers.

Prominent Nigerian human rights lawyer Femi Falana called Trump’s claims “inaccurate” and a “lie.” “The killers – be they terrorists, bandits, or kidnappers – do not care about your religion. They attack communities based on opportunity and vulnerability, not faith,” Falana argued. The Senior Advocate of Nigeria warned that framing the complex Nigerian crisis through a purely religious lens risks worsening interfaith tensions and distracting from the root causes of insecurity, including poverty, state failure, and competition for resources. His comments reflect a broader concern among Nigerian civil society that external narratives are being imposed on a crisis that Nigerians themselves understand through a more nuanced lens.

Amnesty International has acknowledged the severity of violence in Nigeria but has cautioned against framing it as religious persecution. “While the violence constitutes egregious crimes, there is no evidence it constitutes religious persecution,” the human rights organization stated. “Jihadist groups like Boko Haram kill both Muslims and Christians indiscriminately.” The group has called for a more accurate understanding of the conflict, emphasizing that the perpetrators are driven by extremist ideology, criminal opportunism, and local grievances rather than a systematic campaign against any particular faith community.

READ ALSO:

• “I Gave Her 15 Strokes” – Pastor Confesses to Flogging 13-Year-Old to Death
• Release Sowore and Hausa activist Maisango, By Farooq Kperogi
• “I’ve Been a Thief” – Charly Boy Confesses to White-Collar Crime, Drug Abuse in Youth

The narrative of “Christian genocide” in Nigeria did not emerge organically from ground realities. Instead, it followed a concerted, years-long campaign by Christian advocacy groups in the United States, Republican lawmakers who championed the cause, and celebrity activists who amplified the message. This sustained lobbying effort successfully framed a multifaceted security crisis through the single lens of Christian persecution, ultimately influencing U.S. policy – including Nigeria’s designation as a “Country of Particular Concern” for religious freedom and the subsequent military intervention. However, a BBC investigation revealed that many of the figures cited by these groups – such as claims of over 100,000 Christians killed – originate from advocacy organizations with opaque methodologies and are likely inflated, raising questions about the accuracy of the narrative that shaped U.S. policy.

A critical detail often overlooked in the public discourse is that the U.S. Christmas Day strikes targeted Sokoto State – a predominantly Muslim region in northwestern Nigeria. This location is far from the Christian communities in Nigeria’s Middle Belt and southern regions, where activists have highlighted the most severe attacks on Christians. This geographic disconnect has caused tension within Nigeria, with some Christian leaders expressing concern that U.S. military resources were directed away from the areas in greatest need of protection. The targeting of a Muslim-majority area to protect Christians elsewhere has also raised questions about the strategic coherence of the operation and its alignment with the stated humanitarian objectives.

While some Christian groups in Nigeria have welcomed international attention, others have urged caution. Bishop Matthew Kukah of the Catholic Diocese of Sokoto has consistently called for a nuanced understanding of Nigeria’s crisis. He has warned that “framing Nigeria’s conflict purely as religious persecution risks further dividing our nation and alienating Muslim communities who are also victims.” Many Nigerian Christian leaders acknowledge that the Boko Haram insurgency has killed tens of thousands of Muslims and Christians alike, that the farmer-herder conflicts are driven more by land, water, and resource competition than religious ideology, and that economic desperation and state failure in northern Nigeria are the primary drivers of violence affecting all communities.

To understand the true picture, it is essential to recognize the multifaceted nature of insecurity in Nigeria. The jihadist insurgency led by Boko Haram and ISWAP operates primarily in northeastern Nigeria, targeting both Muslim and Christian communities with extremist ideology that does not discriminate between faiths. Meanwhile, banditry and kidnapping – carried out by armed gangs across northwestern states like Zamfara, Katsina, and Sokoto – are motivated by ransom and cattle rustling, not religion, with victims including people of all faiths. The herder-farmer conflicts – driven by climate change and desertification that have forced Fulani herders southward – pit communities against each other over competition for land and water, with both Muslim and Christian communities affected. Underlying all of these is the reality of state failure and impunity, where weak governance, corruption, and underfunded security forces leave communities of all religions vulnerable to attacks from multiple armed groups.

READ ALSO:

• JUST IN: Nigerian Army redeploys 18 generals in nationwide shake-up (Full list)
• Dembele scores stunning hat-trick as France thrash Norway 4-1
• Tinubu Signs NIMC Bill Into Law: “One Person, One Identity” Framework Takes Effect

Security analysts and academics specializing in Nigeria have largely dismissed the “Christian genocide” framing. “The claim of a ‘mass slaughter of Christians’ oversimplifies a complex crisis and risks deepening religious divisions. This is fundamentally a counterinsurgency challenge, not a religious war,” a Nigerian security analyst noted. Dr. Nathaniel Danjibo, a political scientist at the University of Ibadan, adds that “the violence in Nigeria is tragic, but it is not a genocide. Genocide requires specific intent to destroy a particular group. The evidence does not support that conclusion.” These expert assessments underscore the gap between political rhetoric and academic analysis of Nigeria’s security situation.

The Trump administration’s focus on Nigeria’s Christian population follows a broader pattern of policy engagement driven by domestic political considerations. Nigeria was designated a “Country of Particular Concern“ under the International Religious Freedom Act, a designation that allows for targeted U.S. sanctions and policy interventions. The Christmas Day strikes represent a significant escalation in U.S. military involvement in Nigeria, moving from advisory and intelligence-sharing roles to direct kinetic action. However, critics argue that this policy is driven more by domestic U.S. politics – appealing to a conservative Christian voter base – than by accurate on-the-ground assessment of Nigeria’s security needs, and that the long-term consequences of this approach remain unclear.

Despite Trump’s confident statements, several critical questions remain unanswered. Can a single military strike truly “end” a decades-long insurgency that has proven remarkably resilient? What independent verification exists for the claimed elimination of terrorist leaders? What is the actual casualty count from the Christmas Day strikes, including potential civilian harm? How many non-combatants were affected by the U.S. operation? And what is the long-term strategy for stabilizing northern Nigeria beyond targeted killings of terrorist leaders? These unanswered questions highlight the limitations of a military-first approach to a crisis rooted in governance failures and socio-economic deprivation.

President Trump’s claim that the U.S. military has “ended the slaughter of Christians” in Nigeria is a significant overstatement that does not align with available facts. While the December 2025 U.S. airstrikes in Sokoto State were a real military operation conducted with Nigerian cooperation, their framing as the successful end of a targeted Christian genocide is not supported by casualty data, contradicted by Nigerian government and human rights experts, and oversimplifying a devastating yet complex crisis. The true tragedy of Nigeria’s violence is that communities of all faiths – Christians, Muslims, and others – continue to suffer from insecurity driven by extremism, banditry, resource competition, and state failure. Addressing this crisis requires comprehensive solutions that address governance, economic development, and security sector reform – not military shortcuts or politically convenient narratives that risk exacerbating the very divisions they claim to address.

Trump Claims US Military Ended ‘Slaughter of Christians’ in Nigeria