A court ruling on 28 September 2026 has forced Nigeria’s fuel regulator to continue licensing fuel importers, Dangote’s competitors. Dangote is simultaneously suing the government to stop those same licences from being issued. And the regulator’s new chairman previously worked at Dangote Group. This is not just a business dispute; it is a legal battle over who controls energy in Africa’s largest economy.
Background
On 28 September 2026, Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja held that the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) had acted unlawfully by withholding or delaying the issuance and renewal of petroleum product import licences for three major oil marketing companies: Matrix Energy, AA Rano, and AYM Shafa.
The suit was filed in June 2026 by the three marketers, who argued that since July 2025, the NMDPRA had been issuing and renewing their import licences only sporadically, which they said had effectively starved them of the regulatory approvals they needed to operate. An executive director of AA Rano told the court that the three companies had collectively invested more than $20 billion in infrastructure, logistics and retail networks, and argued that the regulator’s conduct was entrenching market dominance in the downstream sector.
Justice Ekwo held that the regulator’s conduct was in “direct non-compliance” with the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021 and that any exercise of licensing powers in breach of the Act was “null and void.” The court directed the NMDPRA to continue granting, issuing, extending, renewing and reissuing licences once the companies meet the applicable statutory and regulatory conditions, while confirming that the Authority retains its powers to modify, suspend, cancel or terminate licences in accordance with the law.
The ruling is significant beyond the three claimant companies. It reinforces the principle that the NMDPRA’s licensing powers must be exercised within the PIA’s statutory and competition obligations, rather than according to the interests of any individual market participant, however large.
The Legal Angle
The Petroleum Industry Act 2021 is Nigeria’s principal oil and gas legislation, enacted following more than two decades of efforts to reform the country’s petroleum industry. It separated petroleum regulation from commercial operations and created the NMDPRA to oversee midstream and downstream activities.
Justice Ekwo’s judgment relied on a combined reading of Sections 31 and 32 of the PIA alongside Section 72 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA). Those provisions together require the NMDPRA to promote competition in the midstream and downstream petroleum sectors, prevent the abuse of dominant market positions, and prevent restrictive business practices.
In plain terms: the regulator cannot exercise its licensing powers in a manner that defeats the PIA’s statutory and competition obligations, including for the benefit of a particular market participant, unless the relevant statutory criteria and legal requirements justify that action. The court confirmed that the NMDPRA retains its licensing discretion, but that discretion must be exercised in conformity with the Act’s competition objectives.
Dangote’s suit argues the opposite reading, relying on Section 317(8) and (9) of the same Act, which it says permits imports only when there is a proven domestic supply shortfall. The courts will ultimately have to reconcile Sections 31–32, which establish the NMDPRA’s competition-related obligations, with Section 317, which addresses the conditions governing petroleum-product imports. That question remains live and will be central to the Lagos case.
The Conflict-of-Interest Question
On 29 April 2026, President Tinubu nominated Rabiu Abdullahi Umar, then the Group Chief Commercial Officer at Dangote Industries Limited, to head the NMDPRA. The Senate confirmed his appointment on 5 May 2026.
Umar now heads the regulator responsible for licensing decisions on petroleum product imports that can affect the competitive position of his former employer, Dangote Industries.
That history raises an important question of regulatory independence.
Nigeria’s public-office framework contains rules governing conflicts between private interests and official duties. The relevant question, however, is not simply whether Umar previously worked for Dangote, but whether any present private interest or particular regulatory involvement creates a conflict requiring disclosure, recusal or other action under the applicable law.
As at 30 September 2026, there is no reported judicial finding establishing that Umar’s former employment at Dangote constitutes a legal conflict of interest. The issue is therefore best understood as a question of regulatory governance and institutional safeguards, rather than an established legal breach.
Where This Goes Next
The battle is live on two fronts.
The Lagos Suit: FHC/L/CS/857/2026
Dangote Petroleum Refinery filed a fresh suit against the Federal Government at the Federal High Court in Lagos, challenging the validity of import licences issued or renewed around 6 May 2026. The suit names NNPC Ltd and six marketers, NIPCO, AA Rano, Matrix, Shafa, Pinnacle and Bono and argues that the licences were issued in breach of an earlier 29 April court order directing the parties to maintain the status quo. The case is before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke and has been adjourned to 7 October 2026.
The outcome of that case will turn, among other things, on how the court interprets the PIA provisions governing petroleum imports and their relationship with the Act’s broader regulatory and competition framework.
The Regulatory Framework
Separately, the NMDPRA has begun stakeholder consultations on the proposed Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Prevention of Anti-Competitive Practices and Behaviour Regulations, 2026, developed pursuant to Section 216 of the PIA. The proposed framework addresses issues including abuse of market dominance, collusion, discriminatory access to essential petroleum infrastructure, pricing transparency and other practices capable of restricting competition.
The timing is significant. As the courts consider the boundaries of petroleum-product import licensing, the regulator is simultaneously developing more detailed rules for competition in the same sector.
For investors and market participants, the larger question is therefore one of regulatory certainty: how will Nigeria’s petroleum laws balance domestic refining capacity, access to imports, competition and the regulator’s licensing powers?
The 28 September Abuja ruling provides one important answer: the NMDPRA’s licensing discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised within the statutory framework. The pending Lagos proceedings will test how that principle applies to the separate question of petroleum-product imports.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Does Nigerian law permit anti-competitive dominance in the fuel market?
No. The PIA and FCCPA require competition to be promoted and prohibit the abuse of dominant positions and restrictive business practices. The 28 September ruling reinforced these obligations. Market dominance itself, however, is not unlawful unless abused.
2. Can the NMDPRA appeal the 28 September ruling?
Yes. The NMDPRA can appeal to the Court of Appeal. As at 30 September 2026, no appeal had been reported as filed. The Abuja order remains applicable to qualifying licence applications in the meantime.
3. What is the PIA and why does it matter for petrol prices?
The PIA is Nigeria’s principal petroleum legislation and established the NMDPRA. How the courts reconcile its competition provisions with Section 317’s import rules could significantly affect market access, domestic refining, competition and petrol prices.
4. What is Dangote’s legal argument, in brief?
Dangote argues that Sections 317(8) and (9) restrict imports where domestic supply is sufficient to meet demand, and that its refinery can meet Nigeria’s requirements. The affected marketers argue that the PIA’s competition provisions must also be considered. The courts will determine how the provisions operate together.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]