Fresh controversy has erupted in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector as major marketers accused the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) of repeatedly granting fuel import licences to a select group of companies, raising fears of monopoly, unfair competition and possible distortion of the country’s deregulated fuel market.
The allegations surfaced during an interactive session convened by the House of Representatives Committee on Petroleum Resources (Downstream), where industry stakeholders presented concerns over regulatory practices and operational challenges affecting the sector.
Leading the charge was the Depot and Petroleum Products Marketers Association of Nigeria (DAPPMAN), which alleged that import permits issued for the first, second and third quarters of 2026 were largely concentrated in the hands of the same operators, while several other qualified marketers were allegedly left out.
The association warned that the trend threatens the principles of competition and equal participation envisioned under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), which ushered in the deregulation of the downstream petroleum industry.
Presenting DAPPMAN’s position before lawmakers, the association’s Executive Secretary, Olufemi Adewole, questioned the transparency of the licensing process, insisting that numerous marketers with the capacity to import petroleum products had been sidelined.
According to him, the repeated allocation of import approvals to a handful of companies sends the wrong signal to investors and undermines confidence in the sector.
“The same set of marketers received import allocations in the first, second and third quarters of 2026, as though other qualified operators do not exist. This is unacceptable, and we urge this committee to ensure greater transparency and fairness in future allocations,” Adewole stated.
DAPPMAN maintained that a truly deregulated market must provide equal opportunities for all eligible operators, stressing that the current arrangement risks creating an uneven playing field.
The association also linked the alleged imbalance in licence allocation to declining business activity across the country’s petroleum storage infrastructure. It disclosed that data obtained from the regulator showed that at least 72 of Nigeria’s 154 licensed petroleum depots recorded minimal or no trading activity within the last year, leaving many depot owners battling shrinking revenues and rising operational costs.
While reaffirming support for domestic refining initiatives, DAPPMAN argued that fuel importation remains a critical backup mechanism, especially during refinery maintenance, supply disruptions or logistical challenges that could threaten product availability nationwide.
Beyond import licences, the marketers also raised concerns over what they described as duplicated port charges and the continued practice of billing certain domestic petroleum transactions in United States dollars despite federal directives discouraging foreign currency charges for local operations.
Reacting to the complaints, Chairman of the House Committee on Petroleum Resources (Downstream), Hon. Ikenga Ugochinyere, assured stakeholders that the allegations would not be ignored.
He disclosed that the committee would summon NMDPRA officials to provide detailed explanations on how fuel import licences were issued and whether the process aligned with the objectives of the Petroleum Industry Act.
“We have taken note of your concerns regarding the lopsided issuance of import licences. These questions will be raised when the NMDPRA appears before the committee to explain the basis upon which the allocations were made,” Ugochinyere said.
Industry experts have also weighed in on the controversy.
Energy analyst Rasheed Adeleke argued that the essence of fuel subsidy removal and market deregulation was to create a level playing field where all qualified participants could compete fairly.
He warned that concentrating import opportunities among a few operators could discourage investment and undermine the gains recorded since the deregulation policy took effect.
“The essence of deregulation of the downstream sector and the removal of fuel subsidy by the Federal Government is obviously lost if imports are concentrated on a few marketers and importers,” Adeleke said.
According to him, maintaining competition and transparency is essential to sustaining investor confidence and ensuring long-term stability in the petroleum sector.
Similarly, the Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise (CPPE), Dr. Muda Yusuf, urged the regulator to adopt a more transparent and inclusive licensing framework.
Yusuf said regulatory agencies must balance market efficiency with fairness, noting that investors are more likely to commit resources when licensing decisions are based on clear and objective criteria.
He added that a transparent process would reassure stakeholders that approvals are not driven by preferential treatment but by compliance with established standards.
Despite the growing criticism, the NMDPRA has defended its licensing process.
Although the agency’s spokesperson, George Ene-Ita, was unavailable for comment, a senior official who spoke anonymously dismissed suggestions of favouritism, insisting that all approved companies met strict regulatory requirements before receiving licences.
The official explained that import approvals are granted based on performance benchmarks and operational capacity rather than arbitrary considerations.
According to the source, the growing output of the Dangote Refinery has also reduced the number of import licences required to meet domestic fuel demand.
“We have some metrics these companies need to meet before they are given licences. The activities of Dangote Refinery show that the number of licences required is limited. The Authority has confidence in the marketers that continue to receive approvals because they have consistently met the required standards,” the official said.
With lawmakers now stepping into the dispute, attention is shifting to the NMDPRA’s forthcoming appearance before the House committee, where the regulator is expected to explain whether its licensing decisions reflect transparency and fairness—or whether the allegations of preferential treatment hold merit.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!