The Director General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu, has defended the foreign engagement strategy of President Bola Tinubu, describing recent criticisms by the former Anambra State Governor, Peter Obi, as a “populist simplification” of Nigeria’s economic realities.

Mr Yakubu, in an article titled “Foreign Engagements and the Dangers of Populist Simplification: Peter Obi’s Ignorance,” argued that Mr Obi failed to appreciate the complexities involved in rebuilding investor confidence and restoring economic stability in a country emerging from fiscal and monetary challenges.

On 16 May, Mr Obi criticised the value of recent foreign state visits by Nigerian leaders, arguing that such engagements must translate into measurable economic benefits for citizens, rather than ceremonial visits.

“State visits by leaders are not tourism, and diplomacy is not a fashion parade,” Mr Obi said.

According to Mr Yakubu, the Tinubu-led administration inherited an economy burdened by structural weaknesses, including fuel subsidy costs, exchange-rate distortions, mounting debt-service obligations, dwindling investor confidence, and heavy reliance on the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) financing to sustain government operations.

The Budget Office DG said under such conditions, international engagements should not be viewed as ceremonial trips but as strategic efforts aimed at rebuilding sovereign credibility, strengthening diplomatic relations, restoring investor confidence, and attracting long-term capital.

Mr Yakubu said the former Anambra state governor oversimplifies economic realities, which has a tendency to reduce complex questions of economic recovery.

“No serious analyst disputes that foreign engagements should ultimately produce measurable economic outcomes. The real issue, however, is whether Mr. Obi properly understands the sequence through which nations emerging from fiscal and monetary instability rebuild investor confidence, restore credibility, and reposition themselves within global capital markets.

“President Tinubu inherited an economy facing severe structural stress: an unsustainable fuel subsidy regime, multiple exchange-rate distortions, collapsing fiscal buffers, mounting debt-service pressures, dwindling investor confidence, and unprecedented dependence on Ways and Means financing simply to sustain government operations.

“Under such circumstances, international engagements are not mere ceremonial excursions; they become instruments for rebuilding sovereign credibility, restoring policy confidence, reassuring investors, strengthening diplomatic alignments, attracting long-term capital, and repositioning the country within regional and global economic networks,” Mr Yakubu said.

Economic comparison

He also faulted Mr Obi’s comparison of Nigeria’s economic situation with that of the United States under former President Donald Trump, saying the two countries operate under entirely different economic realities.

According to him, the United States engages China from the position of the world’s dominant reserve currency issuer, also as the largest consumer market on earth, and a mature industrial economy with deep capital markets and global technological dominance.

In contrast, the director general said Nigeria is a reforming emerging economy attempting to stabilize itself after years of fiscal distortion and policy disequilibrium.

Mr Yakubu further argued that the benefits of international engagements often take time to materialise, stressing that major investments, infrastructure partnerships, and sovereign financing commitments usually emerge gradually after sustained diplomatic and economic engagement.

ALSO READ: Ex-foreign affairs minister criticises Tinubu’s ambassadorial appointments

He described it as contradictory for critics to oppose reforms such as fuel subsidy removal and exchange-rate unification while simultaneously demanding immediate foreign investment inflows.

Mr Yakubu said its is inconsistent to oppose stabilization reforms on one hand while simultaneously demanding the investment confidence that only such reforms can eventually produce.

“More importantly, many of the benefits of state engagements do not materialize instantly in the form of dramatic headline announcements. Serious investments, infrastructure partnerships, manufacturing relocations, energy financing arrangements, and sovereign investment commitments often emerge gradually after sustained diplomatic engagement, policy stabilization, and investor confidence-building.

“Ironically, many of the same critics now demanding immediate investment inflows were among those who opposed the difficult stabilization reforms, including fuel subsidy removal and exchange-rate unification, that were necessary to restore the macroeconomic credibility investors require before committing long-term capital,” he said.

He extolled the administration and CBN’s achievements in stabilising the economy with reforms, and that Nigeria was approaching a dangerous fiscal cliff before the administration’s intervention.

“Diplomacy should indeed generate economic value. But rebuilding a damaged economy requires more than slogans, photo comparisons, or selective foreign analogies.

“It requires difficult decisions, international re-engagement, policy credibility, institutional stabilization, and the patience necessary for long-term economic restructuring to take root,” Mr Yakubu said.

The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd) has accused Dangote Petroleum Refinery of attempting to monopolise Nigeria’s fuel market through a lawsuit challenging import licences granted to rival marketers.

In court documents, the state oil company argued that granting Dangote’s request to void or restrict fuel import permits would undermine competition and expose Nigeria to supply disruptions, price instability and threats to national energy security.

The position was contained in a proposed defence filed before the Federal High Court in Lagos in response to a suit instituted by Dangote Petroleum Refinery against the Attorney-General of the Federation.

Reuters reported that the legal dispute has resulted in the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) applying to join the case.

The move comes less than a month after Dangote Petroleum Refinery filed a fresh lawsuit against Nigeria’s Attorney-General, seeking to overturn fuel import licences granted to oil marketers and the NNPC.

The lawsuit exchange has also broadened the battle over Nigeria’s fuel import policy and the market influence of Dangote’s 650,000 barrels-per-day refinery.

The dispute comes ahead of Dangote Refinery’s planned initial public offering (IPO) in September, raising fresh concerns over market regulation, competition, and the refinery’s future revenue outlook.

In its lawsuit against the government, the refinery argued that licences issued to rival marketers undermine local refining efforts and violate provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), which it said was designed to encourage domestic refining capacity.

However, NNPC has rejected the claim, arguing that the law permits the issuance of import licences to companies with local refining licences or established records in international crude oil and petroleum products trading.

The state oil company further argued that regulators retain the discretion to manage fuel imports under Nigeria’s backward integration policy and that there is no outright ban on fuel imports except where local production sufficiently meets domestic demand.

According to the court documents, NNPC also contended that Dangote refinery had failed to provide “credible, independent or verifiable evidence” that it could consistently meet Nigeria’s total fuel demand and guarantee uninterrupted nationwide supply.

Dangote refinery declined to comment on the matter, citing the ongoing court proceedings.

NNPC also denied allegations that it deliberately frustrated Dangote refinery’s operations or withheld crude oil supplies from the facility.

The company said crude oil allocations were determined by operational, commercial, security and logistical considerations.

Fuel marketers have equally opposed Dangote’s suit, warning that restricting import licences could weaken market competition and threaten fuel supply stability across the country.

The court is expected to hear the matter in the coming weeks.

Background

Since commencing operations in 2024, Dangote Refinery has repeatedly pushed for local marketers to source petroleum products primarily from domestic refineries rather than continue importing refined fuel.

However, the former NMDPRA leadership under Farouk Ahmed consistently resisted any move perceived as creating a monopoly, insisting that allowing a single refinery to dominate supply would undermine competition and threaten Nigeria’s long-term energy security.

That disagreement led to a feud between Aliko Dangote and Mr Ahmed.

Mr Dangote later accused Mr Ahmed of corruption and alleged that the regulator was colluding with international traders and fuel importers to frustrate local refining by continuing to issue import licences.

He also alleged that Mr Ahmed was living beyond his legitimate means, claiming that four of his children were enrolled in expensive secondary schools in Switzerland, raising concerns over possible abuse of office and regulatory integrity.

Mr Ahmed later resigned following the controversy.

Previous lawsuit

In 2024, Dangote Refinery, in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, asked the court to award N100 billion in damages against the NMDPRA for issuing import licences to some marketers and permitting the importation of petroleum products.

The marketers listed in the suit were NNPC Ltd, Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, and 2015 Petroleum Limited.

In the suit dated 6 September 2024, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Ogwu Onoja, asked the court to declare that the NMDPRA violated Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) by issuing licences for the importation of petroleum products.

Dangote Refinery argued that such licences should only be issued when a petroleum product shortfall exists.

The refinery also asked the court to declare that the NMDPRA failed in its statutory responsibility under the PIA by failing to encourage local refineries, such as Dangote Refinery.

However, in a counter-affidavit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024 dated 5 November 2024 and filed by Ahmed Raji (SAN), the marketers asked the court to dismiss Dangote Refinery’s claims, insisting that competitive practices are essential to Nigeria’s economic health and the viability of the oil sector.

They argued that they were fully qualified to receive import licences from the NMDPRA under Section 317(9) of the PIA.

The defendants further alleged that the plaintiff was attempting to monopolise Nigeria’s petroleum industry by seeking sole control of supply, distribution, and pricing.

In July 2025, Dangote Refinery quietly discontinued the lawsuit challenging the import approvals without publicly stating its reasons, leaving unresolved concerns over market competition and supply dynamics in one of Africa’s largest fuel markets.

READ ALSO: NNPC posts N276 billion profit in March

For decades, Nigeria has relied heavily on imported petrol because its state-owned refineries have performed poorly.

The $20 billion Dangote Refinery, owned by billionaire businessman Aliko Dangote, was expected to end that dependence by supplying refined petroleum products locally.

With an installed capacity of 650,000 barrels per day, the facility is Africa’s largest single-train refinery and is projected to reduce pressure on foreign exchange used for fuel imports significantly.

However, petrol imports have persisted as the refinery continues to ramp up production and distribution capacity, while marketers maintain that domestic output alone has yet to meet national demand fully.