Pandora Papers: How Governor Bagudu allegedly stole billions, stash in foreign accounts - Newstrends
Connect with us

Business

Pandora Papers: How Governor Bagudu allegedly stole billions, stash in foreign accounts

Published

on

Eleven years ago, Abubakar Bagudu, the current governor of Kebbi State, but then a senator, dispatched a delegation to Singapore in search of a new haven to shelter his controversial wealth, which is a target of ongoing forfeiture proceedings by the United States Department of Justice.

Investigators say the huge funds, warehoused offshore, is part of billions of dollars Bagudu helped the Sani Abacha family to steal from Nigeria in the 1990s.

Referred by Farrer and Co., a prestigious centuries-old London law firm that has represented the British royal family, Bagudu’s choice of secrecy provider in Singapore was Asiaciti Trust, an entity notorious for helping clients hide behind opaque offshore trusts to launder dirty money across borders.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore, MAS, imposed a fine of one million and a hundred thousand dollars on Asiaciti in July 2020 for “serious breaches” of Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) regulations between 2007 and 2018.

When on February 23, 2010, Bagudu’s delegation – comprising his brother, Ibrahim Bagudu, and London lawyer, Ben Davies, from Byrne and Partners, now a part of PCB Byrne – met with Asiaciti’s officials, they registered his preference for a new structure of secrecy to oil the flow of his dirty wealth for the benefits of himself and his family.

In 1997, some 13 years earlier, Bagudu had structured offshore holdings Ridley Trust and Ridley Group in notorious tax and secrecy havens, Guernsey and the British Virgin Islands, positioning himself as the unseen but ultimate beneficiary. But in 2010, he wanted to terminate the Ridley structure and transfer his assets into another structure, hence the need for Asiaciti’s service in Singapore.

The reason, according to a 2010 Asiaciti memo, was control. As noted in the memo, Ibrahim told the February 2010 meeting that his brother, Mr Bagudu – “the client” – had become “disillusioned” with institutional and independent trustees (of the Ridley Trust) as they (he and his brother) had no control over their action or inaction and suggested they feared they could lose the hidden assets.

He then insisted that any new trustee arrangements to be erected in Singapore “must ensure that the family cannot lose ‘control’ of the assets.”

In the months that followed, 99 million euros in cash and securities was then transferred from Ridley to a new structure enabled by Asiaciti, which brushed aside red flags about Mr Bagudu’s controversial background and source of his wealth. Asiaciti acted with advice from Farrer and Co. and Byrne and Partners, now a part of PCB Byrne, documents showed.

Bagudu is long known to have played an instrumental role in the Abacha conspiracy to steal and launder billions of dollars belonging to Nigeria. But how he set up complicated structures of secrecy to hide stolen money as well as the role of his enablers, including prestigious British law firms and Serious Organised Crimes Agency (SOCA) the predecessor of the National Crimes Agency (NCA), has never been crystal clear.

Pandora Papers investigation – led by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, including more than 600 journalists, including some from PREMIUM TIMES, and about 150 news organisations around the world – uncovered financial secrets, including those of politicians, former and serving public officials, including known and suspected kleptocrats such as Bagudu. Involving 11.9 million leaked records, which journalists sifted through for two years, the Pandora Papers project is the biggest collaborative transnational investigation in the history of journalism.

The leaked records came from 14 offshore services firms from around the world who help clients set up shell companies and design opaque structures to conceal their financial dealings.

The Bagudu Blue structure

As documents showed, Asiaciti helped Mr Bagudu to set up a multi-layered structure with footprints in at least three countries, namely Singapore, Cook Islands, and the United Kingdom. At the head of the structure is Blue Holdings Trust, registered in Cooks Island as a “purpose trust” to “wholly” own a Singapore-incorporated private trust company, Blue PTC Pte Ltd., with Mr Bagudu’s brother, Ibrahim, and an Asiaciti nominee as directors.

The Blue PTC Pte Ltd is in turn the trustee of two family trusts – Blue Family Trust (1) and Blue Family Trust (2). Under each trust, then, is a Singapore family-owned investment holding company, FHIC, Blue Holdings (1) Pte Limited, and Blue Holdings (2) Pte Limited, respectively.

Each of the FHIC has an investment account with Waverton Investment Management, formerly JO Hambro Investment Management, and James Hambro and Partners, both London-based firms. Assets kept with the two firms are now frozen, according to U.S. court documents. America has been at the forefront of helping Nigeria recover the Abacha loot, saying that hundreds of millions of dollars stolen were laundered through banks under its jurisdiction.

The beneficiaries of each of the family trusts and the corresponding investments domiciled in London were Bagudu, his wife, seven children, and his brother, Ibrahim.

In September 2010, according to minutes of some meetings we reviewed, a sum of 99 million euros was moved from Ridley through the Blue PTC in Singapore to the investment accounts in London and distributed as follows:

Blue Holdings (1) (17,007,016 euros): Waverton – seven million euros; James Hambro – 10,007,016 euros.

Blue Holdings (2) (81,841,163 euros): Waverton – 23 million euros; James Hambro – 58,841,163 euros.

Source of funds: Bagudu and the Abacha plunder machine

The systematic plunder of Nigeria by the Abacha family as well as the worldwide hunt for the stolen funds, worth billions of dollars, is reckoned to be one of the worst cases of kleptocracy and offshore shenanigans in the world.

Between 1998, when Mr Abacha suddenly died, and 2020, 3.6 billion U.S. dollars have been recovered from the Abacha family and their most prolific bagman, Bagudu, now a governor in Nigeria’s impoverished Kebbi State.

 

The 163 million U.S. dollars recovery from Jersey in 2003 directly involved Mr Bagudu, who then negotiated a deal with the U.S. and Jersey to return the funds to Nigeria in exchange for Jersey’s withdrawal of an extradition request and his free return to Nigeria. He spent six months in American federal prison in Houston while awaiting extradition to Jersey. The deal to return the $163 million was to avoid that extradition.

 

Also, the latest recovery – 308 million U.S. dollars from Jersey in 2020 – was laundered by Mr Bagudu.

 

Mr Bagudu was involved with all the offshore front companies and bank accounts – from the British Virgin Islands to Ireland, Switzerland, England, Guernsey, and Jersey – used to steal and launder billions of dollars belonging to Nigeria under the Abacha regime as a director, signatory on accounts or prime beneficiary, according to U.S. court documents and incorporation filings from the Pandora Papers leaks.

 

In stealing the funds, Mr Abacha set up what Africa Confidential described as a “Plunder Machine,” involving his family, officials, and associates such as Mr Bagudu, complemented by established western and local banks and offshore enablers.

In pushing for the forfeiture of stolen funds laundered through the U.S., American investigators said the criminal network used fraudulent schemes to make dirty money, according to court documents.

One was “security vote fraud,” whereby Mr Abacha and his National Security Adviser Ismaila Gwarzo and others were said to have stolen more than two billion U.S. dollars by “fraudulently and falsely representing that the funds were to be used for national security purposes.” Between 1994 and 1998, they were said to have made over 60 false claims of “security emergencies” to withdraw huge funds from the Central Bank of Nigeria, then headed by Paul Ogumah.

“Rather than use the funds for national security purposes, the stolen money was transported out of Nigeria and deposited into accounts controlled by General Abacha’s associates, including Mohammed Abacha and Mr Bagudu,” the court in Washington, D.C. was told.

Other schemes were bribery and a dramatic conspiracy by Mr Abacha’s son, Mohammed, and Mr Bagudu to lend money stolen from Nigeria back to Nigeria “with zero risks and at an enormous profit” by using proceeds of the security vote fraud to purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. dollar-denominated Nigerian bonds, called Nigerian Par Bonds, NPBs.

As part of the Brady Bond programme of the 1980s, the NPBs were U.S. dollar-denominated securities whose interest payments were guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury. The Brady Bond programme was created to help developing countries – like Nigeria – holding substantial debt to restructure their debt into bonds. Nigeria first offered the NPBs in 1992.

In another scheme, the conspirators were also said to have defrauded Nigeria of more than 282 million U.S. dollars by causing the government to repurchase Nigeria’s own debt from one of their companies for more than double what Nigeria would have paid to repurchase the debt in the open market.

According to American investigators, the initial funding of Bagudu’s Ridley’s account at Credit Agricole Indosuez, London, to the tune of 90 million U.S. dollars in 1998 was from the Par bonds and the debt-buy-back fraud.

 

The Ridley assets were later transferred to the Blue structure facilitated by Asiaciti and are the outstanding defendant assets being targeted for forfeiture by the United States, court documents showed.

 

The U.S. filed its forfeiture litigation in 2014. It said, then, the assets held by the Blue holdings, traceable to the old Ridley structure, and domiciled in London investment portfolios held with Waverton and James Hambro, were last valued at a total of 96 million euros.

Bagudu’s brother, Ibrahim, continues to claim the assets, seeking to prevent their forfeiture to Nigeria, court documents showed.

In a reply to written questions by The Guardian of UK in conjunction with PREMIUM TIMES and ABC of Australia, Nicola Boulton of PCB Byrne, Mr Bagudu’s lawyers said “all monies held by the Blue Trusts are lawfully held,” citing a 2003 settlement between Mr Bagudu and the Nigerian government under then-President Olusegun Obasanjo.

 

Mr Bagudu is yet to respond to further inquiries PREMIUM TIMES sent to him three weeks ago as part of the reporting for this story.

 

Keeping the Bagudu Dirty Money Flowing – The Enablers

Barely a week after Mr Bagudu’s delegation’s initial visit to Singapore in February 2010, Asiaciti determined that he “has a somewhat controversial background,” making references to his association with the Abacha family and his involvement in “extensive litigation between 2000 and 2006, both criminal investigations and civil claims,” Asiaciti’s internal memo showed.

 

Despite this determination, as well as the awareness that Mr Bagudu’s had since 2003 admitted to financial irregularities as he agreed to return about 163 million US dollars to Nigeria to avoid extradition to Jersey from the U.S., Asiaciti accepted Mr Bagudu as a client in 2010.

 

The Monetary Authority of Singapore, MAS, slammed Asiaciti with a fine of one million and a hundred thousand dollars in 2020 for the company’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing failures between 2007 and 2018, covering the period the company helped Mr Bagudu set up the Blue structure to shelter assets said to have been made from the plunder of Nigeria.

 

“We maintain a strong compliance programme and each of our offices have passed third-party audits for Anti-Money Laundering & Counter-Financing of Terrorism practices in recent years,” Asiaciti said in a written reply to ICIJ over the Pandora Papers. “However, no compliance programme is infallible – and when an issue is identified, we take necessary steps with regard to the client engagement and make the appropriate notifications to regulatory agencies.”

In defending its role, when questioned by authorities following the unsealing of the indictment against Bagudu by the U.S. in 2014, Asiaciti said, “Farrer & Co, a prestigious London law firm, who acts for the Royal Family had accepted the explanations provided and was prepared to act for him, having strict UK CDD requirements.” This was contained in a defence Asiaciti wrote to the regulator.

 

Indeed, as documents showed, between Byrne and Farrer and Co., Asiaciti was advised that Mr Bagudu would not be a problematic client and that the funds he sought to shelter were not derived from criminal sources. That turned out to be false.

 

In an April 2010 memo to press for the acceptance of Mr Bagudu as a client, Bernard O’Sullivan of Byrne said there were no outstanding claims to Mr Bagudu’s assets and that, in 2003, Nigeria, then led by President Olusegun Obasanjo, reached a “global settlement” with Mr Bagudu.

 

The settlement Mr O’Sullivan referred to was that which was executed when Mr Bagudu agreed to return about 163 million U.S. dollars to Nigeria in 2003. Mr O’Sullivan attached a copy of an August 8, 2003, confidential statement by Mr Obasanjo to withdraw all claims from criminal and civil proceedings against Mr Bagudu.

 

This defence was restated in Byrne’s reply following Pandora Papers reporting. “Mr Bagudu reached a compromise with the FRN (Nigeria) in 2003 by which all claims against him and his family were ended and the FRN received cash and certain rights,” Byrne’s Mr Boulton said.

Obasanjo, who entered the settlement agreement with Mr Bagudu, could not be reached to comment for this story as he was said to be travelling in Ethiopia. But sources close to him said it was a “pragmatic step” by the administration that was then desperate to recover stolen funds and that believed Mr Bagudu could help disclose where the funds were stashed. In return, Mr Obasanjo then signed the settlement ending all claims, globally, against Mr Bagudu.

Boulton said Bagudu helped Nigeria recover at least one billion dollars following Abacha’s death.

As documents suggest, between the time the Blue structure was created in 2010 and when its assets were frozen in 2014, 4.6 million dollars or $6.8 million euros was disbursed for Mr Bagudu’s children’s education and the “generous” lifestyle his family “was accustomed to”.

The transferred sum included one hundred thousand dollars annuity to his brother Ibrahim and another three million U.S. dollars moved into Ibrahim’s bank account for “investment in real estate and property development in Abuja.”

In one case in 2013, Farrer and Co helped Bagudu ensure funds were distributed to his family and resisted Asiaciti’s “level of scrutiny”, an attempt at enhanced due diligence.

In an email, Diana Davidson of Farrer and Co. wrote that Bagudu’s brother Ibrahim was “not entirely happy at the level of scrutiny being sought at the sole discretion of Asiaciti”.

In response, an Asiaciti’s client services official said they were “in no way inferring that the distribution requests are suspicious in any way,” and reminded Ms Davidson that Mr Bagudu was a politically exposed person, PEP, thus the transfers he sought required enhanced due diligence.

A breakdown of disbursements showed that 100 thousand U.S. dollars were advised to be paid out for Bagudu’s “son’s school fees” days after Farrer and Co’s Ms Davidson helped him pressure Asiaciti.

But beyond the role played by British firms in the Bagudu shenanigans, the British public service institution was also involved, documents suggested.

In a witness statement in 2015, Asiaciti said Farrer and Co and Byrne & Partners received consent from the UK’s Serious Organised Crime Agency, SOCA, now the National Crimes Agency (NCA), to facilitate the restructuring of Mr Bagudu’s offshore holdings in 2010.

“A protective disclosure was made to SOCA in the UK and their consent was obtained to the resettlement of the Ridley Trust into the Blue Family Trusts before funds were transferred from Ridley Group Limited to Blue Holdings 1 Pte. Ltd and Blue Holdings 2 Pte. Ltd,” Asiaciti’s Karen Hanlong submitted.

Years later, the NCA started working with the U.S. to hunt the assets held by Bagudu from the Abacha plunder of Nigeria.

PREMIUM TIMES said Bagudu did not respond to inquiries sent to him over the report.

Bagudu’s lawyers respond

Responding to questions from investigators, Nicola Boulton of PCB Byrne, Mr Bagudu’s lawyers, said “all monies held by the Blue Trusts are lawfully held,” citing a 2003 settlement between Mr Bagudu and the Nigerian government under then-President Olusegun Obasanjo.

PREMIUM TIMES

 

Loading

Auto

Omoda, Jaecoo Shake Global Auto Market, Hit One Million Sales in Three Years

Published

on

Omoda, Jaecoo Shake Global Auto Market, Hit One Million Sales in Three Years

 

Chinese automotive brands Omoda and Jaecoo are rapidly reshaping the global automobile industry, posting remarkable sales growth and displacing long-established competitors in key markets barely three years after their debut.

Owned by Chinese auto giant Chery, the sister brands have emerged as two of the world’s fastest-growing vehicle marques, recording more than one million cumulative sales across 64 countries by April 2026 while making significant inroads into mature markets traditionally dominated by legacy manufacturers.

Their most striking success has come in the United Kingdom, one of Europe’s most competitive and brand-conscious automotive markets. After entering the UK in 2024, the brands recorded 48,087 new vehicle registrations in 2025, accounting for 2.38 per cent of the market.

The performance placed Omoda and Jaecoo ahead of several long-established manufacturers that have spent decades building customer loyalty in the country.

Driving much of the momentum is the Jaecoo 7 SUV, which finished 2025 as the UK’s fourth most popular retail vehicle before going on to become the country’s best-selling new car in March 2026. It has also ranked as the UK’s third best-selling new car so far in 2026.

Within just 19 months of launching in Britain, the two brands had surpassed 80,000 cumulative vehicle sales, underlining their rapid acceptance among consumers.

Their success extends well beyond the UK.

In Europe, Omoda and Jaecoo sold more than 340,000 vehicles in less than two years by June 2026, earning recognition from industry observers as the continent’s fastest-growing automotive brands.

Australia has witnessed a similar trend. Barely a year after their launch in May 2025, the brands crossed the 10,000-unit sales mark, while the Jaecoo J5 emerged as the country’s best-selling small electric SUV in May 2026.

The brands have also recorded notable achievements in Asia and South America. In Thailand, the Jaecoo J5 topped the country’s electric vehicle sales rankings for six consecutive months, while in Brazil, the Jaecoo 7 Hybrid was named the country’s “Hybrid of the Year.”

Industry analysts attribute the brands’ rapid rise to a combination of striking design, advanced technology, generous standard features and competitive pricing that offers consumers strong value compared with many established rivals.

Safety credentials have also strengthened consumer confidence. Both the Jaecoo 7 and the Omoda 5 have earned five-star ratings from Euro NCAP, Europe’s independent vehicle safety assessment authority, helping to reassure buyers who may be unfamiliar with the brands.

Although many traditional manufacturers still enjoy stronger heritage and decades of brand recognition, industry observers say buying decisions are increasingly being driven by value, technology, design and safety rather than brand familiarity alone.

That shift has created opportunities for newer entrants such as Omoda and Jaecoo, whose rapid global expansion suggests that the automotive landscape is undergoing a significant transformation.

For emerging markets such as Nigeria, where Chinese automobile brands are steadily gaining acceptance, the performance of Omoda and Jaecoo offers another indication of the growing influence of Chinese manufacturers in the global automotive industry.

Loading

Continue Reading

Business

Xenophobia: MTN, Stanbic IBTC, other South African firms face pressure in Nigeria

Published

on

Xenophobia: MTN, Stanbic IBTC, other MTN, Stanbic IBTC, firms face pressure in Nigeria

Xenophobia: MTN, Stanbic IBTC, other South African firms face pressure in Nigeria

South African companies with identifiable business interests estimated at about N20.43 trillion in Nigeria are facing growing uncertainty as pressure mounts on the Federal Government to take stronger action over renewed xenophobic attacks against Nigerians in South Africa.

The renewed violence has triggered calls for economic retaliation, with lawmakers, student groups and other stakeholders urging the government to consider measures against South African businesses operating in Nigeria.

The calls followed reports of attacks on foreign nationals, killings, looting of businesses and the displacement of Nigerians in different parts of South Africa.

The Federal Government has so far focused largely on diplomatic engagement and measures to protect Nigerians in the country, including the evacuation of 1,490 Nigerians from South Africa in five phases between June 10 and July 15.

Nigeria has also continued to press South African authorities to strengthen protection for Nigerians and other foreign nationals and ensure that those responsible for attacks are brought to justice.

The latest dispute has, however, renewed scrutiny of the extensive South African investments in Nigeria, which span telecommunications, banking, insurance, retail, hospitality, logistics, aviation, manufacturing and property-related businesses.

The estimated N20.43tn figure is based largely on publicly available market capitalisation, asset and property valuations of major South African-linked businesses operating in Nigeria. It should not be interpreted as the precise value of South Africa’s foreign direct investment stock in Nigeria.

Calls for retaliation

Pressure for economic retaliation intensified after South African authorities ruled out compensation for Nigerians who abandoned businesses and properties during the latest wave of xenophobic violence.

Senator Adams Oshiomhole called on the Federal Government to consider appropriating profits made by South African companies operating in Nigeria if South Africa failed to compensate Nigerian victims.

Oshiomhole argued that Nigerian authorities should explore stronger economic measures to protect the interests of citizens affected by xenophobic attacks.

READ ALSO:

The proposal, however, has not become government policy, while the Senate subsequently rejected the idea of using profits from South African companies in Nigeria to compensate victims.

The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) has also threatened protests against major South African-linked businesses, including MTN and MultiChoice, in response to the attacks on Nigerians.

The growing calls have raised concerns about whether the diplomatic dispute could eventually spill into Nigeria’s business environment.

Nigerians killed in South Africa

The renewed violence has also resulted in deaths.

Among those killed were Amaramiro Emmanuel and Ekpenyong Andrew, who died in separate incidents in April.

Two other Nigerians, Emeka Iroegbu and Musa Joe, were reported killed in separate incidents on June 28.

By late July, reports indicated that at least four Nigerians had been killed during the latest wave of violence, while Nigerian officials said many more Nigerians had suffered harassment, intimidation, property losses and other forms of abuse.

The Nigerian government subsequently intensified its response, including the voluntary evacuation programme that returned 1,490 Nigerians from South Africa.

The evacuation was coordinated through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Nigerian High Commission in Pretoria, the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission and other government agencies.

South African businesses in Nigeria

South Africa’s commercial presence in Nigeria extends well beyond the brands most familiar to consumers.

The most prominent South African-linked companies listed on the Nigerian Exchange are MTN Nigeria Communications Plc and Stanbic IBTC Holdings Plc.

MTN Nigeria is one of the largest companies on the Nigerian Exchange by market value, while Stanbic IBTC is a major player in Nigeria’s banking and financial services industry.

Other South African-linked interests in Nigeria include Rand Merchant Bank, Sanlam, Alexander Forbes, Broll Property Group, Metrofile, PEP, Mr Price, Pick n Pay, Nampak and businesses associated with the hospitality, aviation and manufacturing sectors.

Some companies commonly described as South African businesses have, however, undergone ownership changes over the years.

For instance, Protea Hotels, which has South African origins, is now part of Marriott International’s global hotel network. Some Nigerian operations also involve local investment partners.

This makes it necessary to distinguish between companies with South African origins, companies controlled by South African parent groups and businesses that still have substantial South African ownership.

How the N20.43tn figure was calculated

The estimated N20.43tn value of South African-linked interests in Nigeria is largely derived from the market values and publicly available asset information of major companies.

MTN Nigeria and Stanbic IBTC account for the bulk of the figure when their respective market capitalisations are considered.

However, market capitalisation should not be treated as the amount of money invested by a foreign parent company.

Both MTN Nigeria and Stanbic IBTC are publicly listed Nigerian companies with shares held by Nigerian and international investors.

Consequently, any action targeted at the companies could affect not only South African interests but also Nigerian shareholders, pension funds, employees, customers, suppliers and government revenues.

Nigeria maintains diplomatic pressure

Despite the growing calls for retaliation, the Federal Government has continued to pursue diplomatic channels.

South African International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola visited Abuja as President Cyril Ramaphosa’s special envoy amid efforts to ease tensions between the two countries.

The discussions focused on the safety of Nigerians and other foreign nationals in South Africa, migration issues and the broader state of Nigeria-South Africa relations.

Nigeria has maintained that South Africa must do more to prevent xenophobic attacks and protect Nigerians legally resident in the country.

South Africa, for its part, has reiterated its opposition to xenophobia, racism and discrimination while insisting that criminality should not be associated with nationality.

The dispute has also generated concerns over compensation for Nigerians who lost businesses and property while fleeing the violence.

South African authorities have rejected calls for government compensation, arguing that the state cannot compensate individuals for private property abandoned during the unrest.

Economic stakes for both countries

Any decision by Nigeria to retaliate against South African companies could have consequences for both countries.

MTN Nigeria, for example, provides telecommunications services to millions of Nigerians and employs thousands of people directly and indirectly through its wider supply chain.

Stanbic IBTC also has a significant presence in Nigeria’s banking, investment and financial services sectors.

Any disruption to their operations could therefore affect consumers, workers, shareholders, suppliers and government tax revenues.

South Africa also has significant economic interests in Nigeria, making the relationship important to businesses in both countries.

The situation has consequently placed the Federal Government in a difficult position: responding firmly to xenophobic attacks against Nigerians while avoiding measures that could undermine jobs, investments and economic stability at home.

For now, Nigeria appears to be relying on diplomatic pressure, consular intervention and the protection of affected citizens rather than imposing broad economic sanctions.

But as calls for retaliation continue to grow, the future of South African investments in Nigeria could become a major factor in the increasingly tense relationship between Africa’s two largest economies.

Xenophobia: MTN, Stanbic IBTC, other South African firms face pressure in Nigeria

Loading

Continue Reading

Business

NMDPRA Unveils Sweeping Draft Rules to Ban Fuel Price-Fixing, Artificial Scarcity

Published

on

NMDPRA Unveils Sweeping Draft Rules to Ban Fuel Price-Fixing, Artificial Scarcity

NMDPRA Unveils Sweeping Draft Rules to Ban Fuel Price-Fixing, Artificial Scarcity

The Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) has proposed comprehensive new regulations aimed at eliminating anti-competitive practices, including fuel price-fixing, market allocation, bid-rigging, and artificial scarcity, across the country’s midstream and downstream petroleum industry. The draft framework, released for public consultation on August 6, 2026, comes amid growing concerns over coordinated pricing among major fuel importers and follows allegations that some operators were selling imported Premium Motor Spirit at prices significantly above locally refined alternatives from the Dangote Petroleum Refinery.

The proposed Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Prevention of Anti-Competitive Practices and Behaviour Regulations, 2026, if adopted, would prohibit petroleum companies from entering into any formal or informal agreements that prevent, restrict, or distort competition. The NMDPRA, in a public notice issued on Thursday, invited licensees, permit holders, and other stakeholders to submit comments on the draft regulations within 21 days, in compliance with Section 216(1) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021, which requires stakeholder consultation before regulations are finalised. The notice, signed by the Authority’s Chief Executive, Rabiu A. Umar, directed industry participants to review the draft on the NMDPRA website and submit observations through the prescribed format. A stakeholders’ consultation forum has been scheduled for September 22, 2026, at the Authority’s headquarters in Abuja, where industry players, civil society organisations, and consumer groups will have the opportunity to provide direct input on the proposed framework.

The draft regulations target a wide range of coordinated conduct that could harm competition and disadvantage consumers. Under Part IV, titled “Collusive Agreements and Anti-Competitive Coordination,” the framework states that “No licensee, market participant, or group of undertakings in the midstream or downstream petroleum sector shall enter into any agreement, arrangement, understanding, or concerted practice, whether formal or informal, written or oral, explicit or tacit, that has the object or effect of preventing, restricting, or distorting competition.” The regulations specifically identify price-fixing or coordinated pricing behaviour as prohibited, including agreements on pump prices, ex-depot prices, margins, discounts, surcharges, freight charges, and pricing benchmarks. If approved, petroleum companies would no longer be permitted to jointly set commercial terms that influence retail fuel prices, a practice that has historically kept pump prices artificially high even when global crude prices decline.

READ ALSO:

The proposed framework also seeks to outlaw market allocation arrangements, where competitors divide customers, geographical territories, product lines, or supply areas among themselves instead of competing openly for market share. Additionally, the regulations would prohibit bid-rigging and collusive tendering in procurement processes, as well as collective supply restrictions where companies jointly reduce production, imports, throughput, or product supply to create artificial scarcity or manipulate market conditions. Such practices have been a longstanding concern in Nigeria’s petroleum sector, where consumers have frequently faced fuel queues and sudden price hikes that appear disconnected from global market trends. The NMDPRA is also targeting tacit collusion and price signalling, including the use of public statements, trade association meetings, or indirect communications to influence competitors’ pricing decisions or exchange commercially sensitive information such as future pricing plans, production schedules, customer lists, and bidding strategies.

Beyond pricing and supply coordination, the regulations aim to prevent restrictive commercial arrangements that could limit market access for smaller operators and independent marketers. The draft proposes restrictions on exclusive supply agreements, excessively long-term contracts, and take-or-pay obligations that effectively lock buyers into a single supplier, thereby reducing their ability to source fuel from more competitive alternatives. The Authority also plans to scrutinise tying and bundling arrangements, where companies with significant market power require dealers or buyers to purchase unrelated products or services as a condition for accessing fuel supply or infrastructure services. These practices, according to the draft regulations, could stifle the growth of independent marketers and reduce consumer choice in the downstream market.

To strengthen enforcement, the regulations empower the NMDPRA to monitor press releases, investor calls, trade association meetings, and public statements by dominant market players for possible anti-competitive coordination. The Authority would also be authorised to investigate suspected anti-competitive practices and work alongside the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) on competition-related matters, ensuring a coordinated regulatory approach across Nigeria’s economic sectors. Under the proposed framework, companies found guilty of serious anti-competitive practices could face administrative fines of up to five per cent of their annual turnover from regulated petroleum activities in Nigeria, while persistent offenders risk suspension or revocation of their licences. Directors or managers directly involved in serious violations could face personal liability, management disqualification, or prosecution where applicable, signalling a tough stance on corporate misconduct.

The regulatory push comes amid renewed scrutiny of Nigeria’s downstream petroleum market following concerning developments in petrol pricing dynamics after the entry of the Dangote Petroleum Refinery. In July 2026, independent petroleum marketers accused major fuel importers, including AA Rano and Matrix, of selling imported petrol at coordinated prices around N1,350 per litre, significantly above what Dangote had been offering to marketers. The Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN) argued that such practices defeated the purpose of import licences meant to encourage competition and moderate prices for Nigerian consumers. The allegations remain contested, and no regulatory finding of collusion has been published, but the incident has heightened public and official concern about the effectiveness of deregulation in delivering price benefits to consumers.

Official price data illustrate the pressure on regulators and the urgency of the proposed rules. National Bureau of Statistics figures show the average pump price surged from N1,034.76 per litre in January 2026 to N1,596.25 in May 2026, representing a 55.31 per cent rise over the same period in 2025. The NMDPRA has confirmed that the Dangote Petroleum Refinery accounted for 87.55 per cent of petrol supplied to the domestic market in May 2026, highlighting significant market concentration that could potentially enable dominant players to influence prices and supply conditions. The proposed regulations form part of broader reforms introduced under the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, which expanded the role of regulators in promoting efficiency, transparency, and fair competition across Nigeria’s petroleum value chain, moving away from the opaque and subsidy-dependent system that characterised the sector for decades.

If adopted after stakeholder consultations, the new rules will provide the NMDPRA with a dedicated legal framework to investigate and sanction anti-competitive conduct while supporting a more transparent, competitive, and consumer-focused petroleum market. The regulations would also strengthen Nigeria’s position in the regional energy market by fostering a more predictable and investment-friendly environment for domestic and foreign investors. The Authority has also signalled interest in improving price transparency across the region, saying it is exploring pathways for establishing an African petroleum products reference price benchmark that reflects regional market realities and protects consumers from arbitrary pricing. Stakeholders have until August 27, 2026, to submit their comments, and the September 22 consultation forum is expected to generate robust debate on how best to balance competition, investment, and consumer protection in Nigeria’s evolving petroleum sector.

NMDPRA Unveils Sweeping Draft Rules to Ban Fuel Price-Fixing, Artificial Scarcity

Loading

Continue Reading

Trending