K. BOLANLE ATI-JOHN argues why Nigeria can no longer afford to ignore its own refining capacity
Nigeria produces more than 1.3 million barrels of crude oil every day. For decades, it nonetheless imported the vast majority of its refined petroleum products, paying in scarce foreign exchange, absorbing international freight and insurance costs, and exposing its citizens to the full volatility of global energy markets. The scale of this dependence is stark: Nigeria has historically spent between $8 billion and $15 billion annually on refined product imports, making downstream dependence one of the largest single drains on foreign exchange in the economy.¹ This paradox was long excused by a single fact: Nigeria had no meaningful domestic refining capacity. That excuse no longer exists.
Today, Nigeria hosts a 650,000 barrel per day refinery, a facility of continental scale, built with private capital and capable of meeting the nation’s entire demand for refined products. Yet the country continues to import refined products, continues to suffer the inflationary ripple effects of global supply shocks, and continues to allocate crude oil as though domestic refining were irrelevant to national economic stability. This is not merely a market inefficiency; at its root, it reflects a policy failure to align the country’s resource endowment with its strategic interests. In strategic terms, it represents a transition lag between infrastructure capability and allocation doctrine. The question is no longer whether Nigeria can secure its domestic fuel supply. It is whether the state has the strategic discipline to use the assets it now possesses.
To chart a way forward, we must first acknowledge the past. Nigeria previously operated crude-for-product swap arrangements designed to guarantee supply without immediate cash outlay. Those schemes became notorious for opacity, rent seeking, and fiscal leakage, and they were rightly dismantled. Yet the concept they embodied—using domestic crude to secure domestic fuel—was never flawed; only its execution was. What Nigeria now has is an opportunity to build a very different mechanism: a Domestic Energy Security Framework that replaces opaque trader swaps with a transparent, contract-based relationship between the state, through NNPC, and domestic refiners.
Such a framework would allocate a defined volume of crude to domestic refining on a predictable, long-term basis. It would establish pricing mechanisms that balance market realities with a stabilization corridor to be activated during severe global disruptions. It would ensure that domestic supply is prioritized before exports, reversing the “export first” logic that served Nigeria when it lacked refining capacity but that has become an anachronism. Crucially, the framework would embed auditable transparency, digital traceability, and independent oversight to prevent the abuses of the past. And it would respect the commercial integrity of private refiners by providing lawful compensation—whether through tax credits, royalty offsets, or other instruments (for instance, a tax credit calculated against actual export parity prices verified by an independent auditor)—for any foregone export value incurred in serving the domestic stabilization objective. This would not be a coercive arrangement; it would be negotiated, fully compatible with the Petroleum Industry Act, and designed as a genuine partnership that aligns public interest with commercial viability. Countries such as India, Indonesia, and Brazil maintain structured domestic allocation frameworks that ensure refining capacity contributes directly to national energy stability during periods of global volatility. India’s domestic crude allocation and strategic pricing mechanisms ensure refinery throughput remains aligned with national supply priorities during external shocks. Indonesia’s Domestic Market Obligation framework requires producers to support internal energy needs before export exposure. Brazil has historically used Petrobras as a stabilization anchor during volatility cycles. Nigeria’s situation is therefore not unusual; what is unusual is the continued absence of a comparable coordination framework despite the emergence of large-scale domestic refining capacity. This is not an untested experiment; it is the global standard for nations that treat energy as a strategic asset.
Policy debates in Nigeria have long treated energy as an economic issue. That framing is dangerously narrow. The consequences of inaction extend directly into the realm of national security, touching on five distinct vulnerabilities.
First, supply chain vulnerability. Nigeria remains reliant on imported refined products even with a functioning mega refinery. A disruption in global shipping, whether from conflict in the Red Sea, tensions in the Gulf, or a geopolitical closure of the Strait of Hormuz, would translate directly into domestic fuel scarcity. History teaches that fuel shortages in Nigeria trigger economic paralysis, labor unrest, and, in extreme cases, state fragility. Episodes such as the nationwide disruptions surrounding the 2012 subsidy crisis and subsequent fuel-supply shocks have demonstrated how quickly downstream instability can translate into transport stoppages, industrial slowdowns, and widespread public protest. To maintain this vulnerability when a domestic alternative exists is to invite strategic risk.
Second, the fiscal foreign exchange spiral as a threat to state solvency. NNPC’s continued import of refined products consumes billions of dollars in foreign exchange that could otherwise stabilize the naira, service external debt, or fund critical imports. Even partial substitution of refined product imports through domestic processing could conservatively retain between $6 billion and $10 billion annually within the Nigerian economy, materially strengthening external reserves and reducing exchange-rate vulnerability during periods of global stress. A currency crisis is not merely an economic statistic; it impairs the state’s ability to pay its security forces, procure military equipment, and maintain basic governance functions. By underutilizing domestic refining, Nigeria is effectively funding its own fiscal insecurity.
Third, inflation as a driver of social instability. Food, transport, and energy inflation are already stoking public discontent. Unchecked, this creates fertile ground for protests, civil unrest, and the kind of mass disaffection that historically has escalated into broader instability. Security agencies understand that economic despair is a threat multiplier. Using domestic refining to dampen inflation is therefore not a welfare policy; it is a conflict prevention measure.
Fourth, the underutilization of a strategic national asset. Nigeria’s new large-scale domestic refining capacity is not merely a private investment; it is critical national infrastructure, akin to a power station or a major port. This is not to suggest state control, but rather state coordination—establishing a predictable framework within which a private asset serves public resilience without compromising its commercial viability. To allow such an asset to operate purely as an export-oriented merchant refinery while Nigerians absorb the full weight of international price shocks is a failure of strategic statecraft. No country with a strategic asset of this magnitude would leave its deployment to pure commercial discretion while its citizens bear the consequences of external volatility.
Fifth, exposure to external coercion. As long as Nigeria depends on international traders and foreign refineries for its fuel supply, it remains vulnerable to price manipulation, supply withholding, or political pressure. A domestic stabilization framework reduces that exposure, enhancing energy sovereignty—a core component of national security in an increasingly volatile world. These five dangers are not hypothetical. They are the predictable outcomes of a status quo that no longer has any technical justification.
The Path to Implementation: A defensible framework is one thing; delivering it is another. Success requires deliberate sequencing, the strategic use of leverage, and the building of a broad coalition.
Implementation should not be attempted as a “big bang” directive that invites resistance; rather, it should unfold in phases. A pilot commercial agreement between NNPC and domestic refiners for a defined domestic supply quota would establish proof of concept, with transparent pricing and compensation mechanisms that build trust. Thereafter, stabilization triggers—shock-time protocols—could be codified through existing emergency provisions, framed as extensions of disaster preparedness rather than as market distortions. Only after these foundations are in place should the framework be formalized into policy, using the pilot’s success to secure legislative or regulatory backing.
Leverage is equally critical. Refinery lenders such as Afreximbank and commercial banks require predictable cash flow; a framework that guarantees crude supply and offtake reduces their risk, making them natural allies rather than obstacles. NNPC itself currently bears the cost of imports through subsidy under-recovery or other mechanisms; shifting to domestic supply improves NNPC’s cash flow and balance sheet, turning it into an internal champion. And the presidency, facing a cost-of-living crisis, needs a tangible win; framing this initiative as “using Nigerian oil to lower Nigerian prices” offers a high-impact, defensible intervention.
Coalition building must be deliberate. Manufacturers who rely on diesel, transporters, organised labour (when the initiative is framed as anti-inflation), economic reform advocates who see it as completing deregulation, and domestic content proponents can all become supporters. Importers and traders who benefit from the status quo should be co-opted through transition arrangements that allow them to participate in the new framework, thereby converting potential opposition into stakeholders in success. Regulators such as the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission must be given clear roles with adequate resources, not bypassed. Every stakeholder must see a place in the new architecture.
Legal cover can be secured without a protracted legislative process. The Petroleum Industry Act already provides for domestic crude supply obligations (Section 109, etc.) that can serve as a legal foundation; invoking these would align the framework with existing statute. Presidential directives under the Petroleum Act or emergency powers can provide authority for stabilization triggers. NNPC’s commercial authority already permits long-term crude supply agreements. Fiscal incentives such as tax waivers and royalty credits fall within executive authority. A published Domestic Energy Security Guidelines can establish transparency and accountability without needing parliamentary approval, allowing the framework to move swiftly while maintaining legitimacy.
Communication must be layered. For insiders, the framework is a negotiated commercial stabilization mechanism fully compatible with the Petroleum Industry Act. For the public, the narrative must be simpler and morally resonant: “We built a refinery so Nigerians would stop paying world prices for their own oil. Without a clear rule to make that happen, we are still importing what we should produce. This framework creates that rule without returning to the old corruption of swaps.” Such a message ties national pride, economic relief, and anti-corruption into a single compelling story.
If implemented with discipline and transparency, this framework would represent a fundamental shift in Nigerian governance. It would finally retire the decades-old paradox of being a major crude exporter and net product importer. It would demonstrate that Nigeria can move beyond the binary of state control versus laissez faire to a mature contract-based coordination economy in which public goods and private capital are aligned through well-designed rules rather than through ad hoc directives. It would align industrial policy with macroeconomic stability, using domestic refining to dampen inflation and relieve foreign exchange pressure. It would transform a relationship that has sometimes been adversarial between the state and private investors into a structured partnership that serves the national interest. And it would provide a template for other strategic sectors—gas, power, fertilizer—where the same tension between private investment and public necessity must be resolved.
Yet the most important outcome would be the establishment of a principle: that Nigeria will no longer allow its strategic assets to sit idle while its citizens bear avoidable hardship. That principle, once entrenched, would have ripple effects far beyond the downstream sector. It would signal to investors that Nigeria can create stable, predictable frameworks for strategic industries. It would show citizens that the state is capable of using its resources to improve their lives. And it would demonstrate to the world that Nigeria is finally ready to move from resource endowment to resource sovereignty.
The Cost of Inaction: Let us be clear about what is at stake. If Nigeria fails to adopt a domestic stabilization framework, it will remain vulnerable to global supply shocks that translate into domestic scarcity and instability. Consider a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz or a major disruption in Red Sea shipping. In the current system, such an event would immediately translate into domestic fuel scarcity, economic paralysis, and civil unrest. Under the proposed framework, domestic refining capacity would be prioritized, cushioning Nigerians from the shock. It will remain exposed to a foreign exchange drain that undermines macroeconomic stability and state solvency. It will remain subject to inflationary pressures that deepen poverty and fuel social unrest. And it will remain dependent on external actors for a commodity that its own soil and its own investment now provide.
Continuing the current path is not neutrality. It is a choice—a choice to accept risks that are avoidable, costs that are unnecessary, and instability that is foreseeable. No nation that possesses the means to secure its own energy should willingly surrender that security to global volatility. Nigeria has the means. What remains is the will to use them.
The argument for a Domestic Energy Security Framework is no longer a technical discussion about crude allocation or pricing formulas. It is a strategic imperative that touches on fiscal stability, social cohesion, and national sovereignty. Nigeria has the infrastructure. It has the legal framework. It has the commercial partners. What remains is the resolve to close the gap between what is possible and what is done.
That gap must close not because it is convenient, but because the cost of leaving it open is a danger Nigeria can no longer afford.
Rear Admiral Bolanle Ati-John (rtd) is
Distinguished Fellow, National Defence College, Abuja
Leave a comment