Eshiorameh Sebastian, Abuja
In a direct and combative response to corruption allegations leveled by Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, the head of Nigeria’s petroleum regulator has accused the industrialist of a smear campaign designed to intimidate his agency and secure market dominance for his refinery.
Farouk Ahmed, the Chief Executive Officer of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA), issued a detailed public statement on Tuesday, describing Dangote’s petition for his arrest as “the weaponisation of his family’s privacy” to serve a commercial agenda.
This comes hours after Dangote submitted a formal petition to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICIPC), demanding Ahmed’s prosecution over allegations he spent $7 million on his children’s Swiss education.
“This journey, spanning many administrations, economic cycles, and countless regulatory challenges, has been guided by a single unwavering principle: The national interest of Nigeria transcends all personal considerations,” Ahmed stated.
The clash is not a sudden eruption but the boiling over of a simmering conflict that has pitted the $20 billion Dangote Petroleum Refinery against its primary regulator for over a year. The dispute centers on the NMDPRA’s continued issuance of licenses for fuel imports, a policy Dangote has repeatedly labeled “economic sabotage” meant to undermine his refinery’s capacity to meet national demand.
In July 2024, the NMDPRA publicly questioned the quality of diesel from the Dangote refinery, suggesting it was substandard. Dangote vehemently denied this, and a subsequent test overseen by the House of Representatives appeared to contradict the regulator’s findings, deepening the acrimony.
The tension reached a new peak over the weekend when Dangote, during a press briefing in Lagos, accused Ahmed of living far beyond his means and presiding over “regulatory failures and alleged corruption.” He followed this with a formal legal petition on Monday, alleging Ahmed spent “$7 million of public funds” on his children’s education abroad without a lawful source of income.
In his 2,200-word rebuttal, Ahmed tendered a point-by-point defence against the financial allegations and positioned himself as a principled regulator facing down powerful interests.
On the specific claim of funding his children’s education, Ahmed stated: “Three of my four children received substantial merit-based scholarships ranging from 40% to 65% of tuition costs.” He further cited support from an education trust established by his late father, a Northern Nigerian businessman, calling it “consistent with our cultural traditions of collective family investment in education.”
Challenging the narrative of inexplicable wealth, Ahmed disclosed his official compensation. “My annual compensation as NMDPRA CEO, approximately ₦48 million including all allowances, is publicly available,” he wrote.
He argued that combined with savings from a 34-year public service career and family resources, the expenses were legitimate.
Consequently, he invited investigation. “I hereby publicly authorise all educational institutions my children have attended to disclose financial records to authorized Nigerian government investigators,” he declared, also requesting probes by the Code of Conduct Bureau, the EFCC, and the National Assembly.
Ahmed’s statement framed Dangote’s actions as retaliation for the NMDPRA’s enforcement of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), which mandates supply security. He argued that relying solely on the Dangote refinery creates a risky monopoly.
“Granting import licenses when domestic supply proves insufficient is not sabotage—it is our legal duty. A single-source supply model, regardless of ownership, creates dangerous vulnerabilities that no responsible regulator can ignore”, Ahmed stated countering Dangote’s accusations.
He connected the allegations directly to his regulatory actions: “These allegations resurface precisely when NMDPRA has enforced quality standards revealing substandard petroleum products in the market, implemented stricter licensing requirements, and insisted on transparent pricing mechanisms that eliminate opacity benefiting certain market players. This timing is not coincidental.”
While the House of Representatives has summoned both parties to explain the dispute, the ICPC has confirmed receipt of Dangote’s petition and stated it will conduct an investigation.
Discussion about this post