The World Bank has come under fire for what local energy experts and industrial stakeholders have described as “dangerous and overly simplistic advice” regarding Nigeria’s fuel policy and its “competition strategy” with domestic refineries. In its April 2026 “Nigeria Development Update,” the global financial institution reportedly advised the Federal Government to “resume and liberalize petrol imports” as a buffer against potential “supply disruptions” and to “force price competition” with the newly operational Dangote Refinery. The report, which was briefly published and then “withdrawn after a public backlash,” argued that imported petrol could potentially be “cheaper” than locally refined products, estimating a price of ₦1,122 per litre compared to the ₦1,275 offered by domestic producers.
The advice has been met with “stiff resistance” from proponents of Nigeria’s “energy sovereignty” and the local manufacturing sector. Critics maintained that the World Bank’s recommendation is “disconnected from the economic and legal realities” of the nation, particularly the “Petroleum Industry Act” (PIA) of 2021, which prioritizes “domestic refining” and restricts imports where “local capacity exists.” Supporting context indicates that the Dangote Refinery a $20 billion investment is currently supplying a significant share of the national consumption, and “import liberalization” at this stage could “undermine national policy” and “discourage future industrial investment.” Energy analysts have also “questioned the pricing assumptions” of the World Bank, arguing that once freight, insurance, and the “volatile exchange rate” are factored in, imported fuel would likely be “more expensive” than locally produced variants.
Stakeholder reactions to the World Bank’s report have been characterized by a “strong defense” of the domestic refining sector. The President of the “Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria” (IPMAN), Abubakar Maigandi, noted that while “competition is healthy,” it must not come at the “expense of national industrial survival.” Similarly, various “pro-Nigeria” advocacy groups have described the advice as a “neocolonial tactic” to keep the country “permanently dependent” on foreign refineries. Conversely, some “consumer rights groups” have expressed cautious support for the idea of “import licenses,” arguing that the current “near-monopoly” of the domestic market has not led to the “expected reduction” in pump prices for the average Nigerian.
Economic and energy analysts observe that the “World Bank Controversy” highlights the “fragility of Nigeria’s transition” from an importer to a producer nation. Experts suggest that the institution’s “pricing model” is based on “idealized global benchmarks” that do not account for Nigeria’s “logistics bottlenecks” and “currency pressures.” They argue that the government should focus on “optimizing the domestic supply chain” and “fixing the state-owned refineries” in Port Harcourt and Warri rather than “reopening the floodgates” for imports. Analyst Dr. Olasunkanmi Bello noted that “energy security is the first line of national defense,” adding that the World Bank’s advice “ignores the strategic value” of a self-sufficient downstream sector.
The broader implications of this “dangerous advice” point toward a “potential policy clash” between the Federal Government and international development partners. If the administration bows to the “pressure for liberalization,” it risks “alienating its most significant industrial partners” and “weakening the Naira” through increased foreign exchange demand for fuel imports. The “withdrawal of the report” by the World Bank suggests an “admission of its insensitivity” to the national mood, but the “underlying philosophy” remains a concern for policy-makers. As the Federal Executive Council (FEC) deliberates on the “final roadmap” for the petroleum sector, the focus remains on “protecting domestic investments” and “ensuring affordable energy” for the public. For the Nigerian economy, the “World Bank episode” is a reminder that “global advice” must always be “sieved through the sieve of national interest.”
