Blue Economy
PENGASSAN vs. Tinubu’s Oil Revenue Order: Reform Resistance or Legitimate Concern?
The oil workers’ union wants the president to reverse a landmark order that strips NNPC of its power to collect and deduct Nigeria’s oil money. But the numbers tell a damning story about why the order was necessary in the first place.
Bode Animashaun
When President Bola Tinubu signed his executive order on February 13, 2026, mandating that Nigeria’s oil revenues flow directly into the Federation Account rather than through the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, he did something few presidents had dared to do: he cut NNPC off at the money tap.
The reaction from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) was swift and fierce. Its president, Festus Osifo, called the order a “direct attack” on the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) — the landmark 2021 law that restructured Nigeria’s oil sector and gave NNPC its current commercial mandate. He accused the presidency of being misled, warned of investor flight, and demanded the order be immediately recalled.
But before accepting PENGASSAN’s arguments at face value, it is worth asking: what, exactly, is being defended here?
What the Executive Order Actually Does
Under the PIA framework, NNPC retained 30 percent of the federation’s oil revenues as a management fee on profit oil and gas derived from production sharing, profit sharing, and risk service contracts. The company also retained another 30 percent of its profit oil and gas as the Frontier Exploration Fund, and an additional 20 percent of its profits for working capital and future investments.
In other words, NNPC was simultaneously Nigeria’s national oil company, a commercial enterprise, and the entity collecting, deducting, and remitting the nation’s oil money — a structural arrangement ripe for opacity and abuse.
The executive order introduces immediate measures to curb leakages, enhance transparency, eliminate duplicative structures, and reposition NNPC strictly as a commercial enterprise while safeguarding the federation’s interests. Going forward, all royalties, taxes, profit oil, and profit gas from production sharing contracts must be paid directly into the Federation Account. NNPC’s management fee and Frontier Exploration Fund deductions are scrapped.
The presidency’s case is straightforward and backed by hard evidence: NNPC has been sitting on Nigeria’s money.
The Revenue Record PENGASSAN Wants You to Ignore
The track record of NNPC’s stewardship over federation revenues is not a matter of opinion — it is documented in audit reports, FAAC minutes, and World Bank assessments.
The World Bank accused NNPC of failing to fully remit oil revenues to the Federation Account, thereby undermining fiscal transparency and macroeconomic stability. The bank noted that while the company was corporatised in 2021 to operate as a commercial entity, it still retains monopolistic control over crude oil sales and foreign exchange inflows, leading to persistent gaps between reported earnings and actual remittances. More damaging still, even after the removal of petrol subsidies, the World Bank observed that NNPC remitted only about 50 per cent of the revenue gains, using the rest to offset past arrears. PIDS
The scale of the problem goes back further. An audit by Periscope Consulting, engaged by the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, accused NNPC of withholding $42.37 billion in oil revenue from the Federation Account between 2011 and 2017. NNPC rejected the findings, but the persistent cycle of audits, counterclaims, and stalemates has weakened trust in the federation revenue system and eroded confidence among states that depend on oil proceeds for survival. PIDS
As recently as late 2025, the government quietly wrote off approximately $1.42 billion and N5.57 trillion in NNPC’s accumulated debts to the federation — essentially absorbing the losses and wiping the slate clean before this new order took effect. Officials argued that fiscal and structural arrangements introduced under the PIA had resulted in off-budget allocations and revenue deductions that diluted federal inflows, and that the action had become urgent due to declining oil and gas receipts despite improved production levels and relatively favourable global prices.
This is the context within which PENGASSAN’s outrage must be evaluated.
Does PENGASSAN’s Legal Argument Hold Water?
Osifo’s constitutional argument — that an executive order cannot override an Act of the National Assembly — is not without merit and deserves fair examination. The PIA is indeed a statute, and the sections he cites (8, 9, and 64) do establish NNPC’s operational and fiscal framework. Legal scholars will debate whether Tinubu’s order encroaches on those provisions.
However, the presidency’s counter-argument is equally grounded in law. The executive order is anchored on Section 44(3) of the Constitution, which vests ownership, control, and derivative rights in all minerals, mineral oils, and natural gas in Nigeria in the Government of the Federation. The directive seeks to restore the constitutional revenue entitlements of the federal, state, and local governments, which the government argues were effectively removed in 2021 by the PIA. In other words, Tinubu is not claiming that he can casually override legislation — he is asserting a constitutional supremacy argument: that the PIA, to the extent it diverted federation revenues away from the Federation Account, was itself constitutionally defective.
That is a substantive legal question that courts may eventually have to resolve. But it is not the frivolous overreach PENGASSAN portrays it to be.
PENGASSAN’s Consistency Problem
A closer look at PENGASSAN’s recent history of policy positions reveals a pattern that raises uncomfortable questions.
In September 2025 — just five months before this controversy — PENGASSAN and its sister union NUPENG jointly opposed the Federal Government’s proposed sale of Joint Venture equities in the upstream sector, warning that handing decisive control to private interests would weaken Nigeria’s sovereign ability to plan, stabilise supply, and respond to economic shocks. That is a legitimate concern about strategic asset divestiture and deserves to be taken seriously.
But in August 2025, Osifo himself warned that constant policy amendments — particularly to the PIA — were discouraging investors and that frequent changes to laws don’t aid stability. He is now using the same investor-confidence argument to oppose a reform that plugs revenue leakages. The irony is sharp: PENGASSAN previously warned against weakening NNPC through privatisation while now defending an NNPC structure that, by the World Bank’s own account, has been shortchanging the federation for years.
It is also worth noting that PENGASSAN eventually backed fuel subsidy removal under Tinubu — a reform far more disruptive to ordinary Nigerians than redirecting management fees to the Federation Account. The union’s selective militancy is conspicuous.
The Jobs Argument: Real or Rhetorical?
Osifo’s most emotive claim is that if the order is not reversed, “our members are in danger of being declared redundant because NNPC may not be able to meet its obligations.” This is a serious warning if true, but it needs scrutiny.
NNPC remitted N12.117 trillion to the federation between January and October 2025, and recorded N4.358 trillion in revenue and N502 billion in profit after tax. A company with those numbers — even after losing management fees and frontier fund deductions — is not on the verge of insolvency. The claim that stripping duplicative deductions will make NNPC unable to pay staff salaries conflates the company’s operating budget with its fee-collection function. These are not the same thing.
PENGASSAN also alleged that the executive order was introduced without broad consultation with key industry stakeholders, heightening concerns about transparency and regulatory certainty, with Osifo noting: “We were not adequately consulted. When policies of this magnitude are introduced without engagement, it creates uncertainty, and uncertainty is the enemy of investment.” That is a procedural complaint worth taking seriously — good policy process matters. But the absence of consultation does not make the policy wrong, especially when its underlying rationale is this strong.
Corruption Fighting Back, or Genuine Reform Anxiety?
The more difficult question is whether PENGASSAN’s pushback is, at its core, an institutional defence of the status quo under which NNPC has wielded enormous financial discretion — discretion that has not always translated into full remittances to the federation.
Nigeria’s oil unions have historically positioned themselves as guardians of the sector’s integrity. Sometimes that role has been genuinely patriotic. But an organisation that resists JV divestiture, opposes PIA amendments, warns against executive orders, and simultaneously insists that the entity responsible for years of documented revenue shortfalls must retain its deduction powers — that organisation owes Nigerians a cleaner accounting of whose interests it is actually serving.
The order forces a commercial transition by removing quasi-sovereign revenue privileges and pushing NNPC closer to operating as a true commercial oil company rather than a hybrid state revenue custodian. That is not an attack on the oil industry. That is what reform looks like.
PENGASSAN’s legal concerns about executive order limits deserve a hearing in court if it chooses to pursue them. But the moral case for keeping NNPC as both the collector and remitter of Nigeria’s oil wealth — given everything we now know about how that arrangement has worked in practice — is very difficult to make.
The Federation Account belongs to all Nigerians. For too long, it has been treated as NNPC’s first stop, not its last.
Lagos Deputy Speaker Throws Weight Behind 8th WISTA Africa Conference
By Samson Onoharigho | Waterways News
The Deputy Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Mojisola Lasbat Meranda, has pledged her support for the 8th WISTA Africa Regional Conference and confirmed she will personally attend the continental maritime event, billed to take place in Lagos later this month.
Meranda gave the commitment when she received a delegation of the Women’s International Shipping and Trading Association (WISTA) Nigeria, led by its President, Dr. Odunayo Ani, during a courtesy visit to her office. The visit formed part of WISTA Nigeria’s pre-conference stakeholder outreach, targeting key institutional and legislative voices ahead of the gathering expected to draw policymakers, maritime regulators, industry operators, development partners, academics and professionals from across Africa.
Ani formally invited the Deputy Speaker and women across Lagos State to participate in the conference, scheduled for June 25 and 26, 2026, at Eko Hotel and Suites, Victoria Island, Lagos. She said the event, themed “From Policy to Implementation: Women Advancing Africa’s Blue Economy through Sustainable Shipping, Trade and Energy Innovation,” would focus on translating high-level policy commitments into concrete, sector-wide action.
The WISTA Nigeria president underscored Lagos’s pivotal role in Africa’s maritime economy, arguing that the visible participation of women leaders from the state would lend significant weight to ongoing advocacy for broader female representation in maritime decision-making, innovation, and economic governance.
A group photograph of WISTA Nigeria delegation with the Lagos Deputy Speaker, during a courtesy visit last week
“The support and participation of women leaders in Lagos State will enrich discussions and help advance the drive for greater female representation and inclusion across Africa’s maritime and blue economy sectors,” Ani said.
She also called on the Lagos State House of Assembly to mobilise women across the state for the conference, describing it as a rare platform for shaping a more inclusive and equitable future for Africa’s blue economy.
Responding warmly, Meranda commended WISTA Nigeria’s consistent contributions to championing women in the maritime industry and reaffirmed her longstanding relationship with the association. She confirmed her attendance and pledged active support for initiatives geared toward widening women’s participation across the blue economy value chain.
Nigeria Watch
The 8th WISTA Africa Regional Conference arrives at a moment of heightened policy activity in Nigeria’s maritime sector — from ongoing cabotage reform conversations and the CVFF disbursement saga to the broader push to position Nigeria as the hub of Africa’s blue economy. That WISTA Nigeria chose Lagos as the host city is no accident: with the Apapa and Tin Can Island ports, the emerging Lekki Deep Seaport complex, and the administrative machinery of NIMASA and the NPA all concentrated in the commercial capital, Lagos remains the operational heartbeat of Nigeria’s shipping industry.
What stands out about this edition is the deliberate legislative buy-in. Securing the endorsement of the Lagos Deputy Speaker is not merely symbolic — it signals an attempt to build bridges between the maritime industry and the lawmaking architecture that ultimately shapes port governance, cabotage enforcement, and blue economy investment policy. For an industry that has long complained of regulatory fragmentation and legislative indifference, that kind of outreach matters.
The conference theme — moving from policy to implementation — also resonates sharply in the Nigerian context. Nigeria has no shortage of blue economy frameworks, maritime masterplans, and gender inclusion commitments on paper. The harder challenge, as industry stakeholders consistently note, is converting those documents into enforceable regulation, funded programmes, and genuine career pathways — particularly for women, who remain significantly underrepresented at the senior levels of Nigerian shipping, port management, and maritime trade.
Port operators, shipowners, freight forwarders and terminal managers attending the June 25–26 conference would do well to engage the implementation-focused sessions closely. The conversations there are likely to feed back into the policy pipeline affecting their operations.
Waterways News | Maritime & Blue Economy Reporting
Nigeria Projects Blue Economy Vision at Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa
By Okeoghene Onoriobe | Waterways News Correspondent
Nigeria has stepped onto the global stage to assert its maritime ambitions, with the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Sola Enikanolaiye, representing President Bola Tinubu at the Our Ocean Conference currently holding in Mombasa, Kenya.
The three-day summit, running from June 16 to 18, convenes heads of state, ministers, investors, environmental advocates, policymakers and civil society leaders to advance concrete solutions for protecting the world’s oceans while unlocking their economic potential. Since its founding in 2014, the conference has built a reputation as one of the world’s most outcome-driven environmental forums, with a strong record of converting pledges into verifiable action.
This year’s edition places Africa’s blue economy at the centre of deliberations, acknowledging its role in sustaining more than 50 million livelihoods across the continent’s 38 coastal nations. Key discussions are focused on persistent threats to marine ecosystems — illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, plastic pollution, rising ocean temperatures and the urgent need for expanded marine protected areas.
Nigeria is expected to use the platform to articulate its position as West Africa’s foremost maritime nation, drawing attention to ongoing efforts to develop its blue economy framework, reinforce maritime security architecture in the Gulf of Guinea, and improve ocean health across its coastline and exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The delegation is also expected to advance engagement with international partners on mechanisms to scale up sustainable ocean-based industries and deepen regional cooperation frameworks.
The conference programme extends beyond diplomatic exchanges to include investment forums, a BlueTech exhibition, youth leadership tracks and specialised policy clinics designed to drive innovation in climate adaptation and sustainable ocean governance. Organisers expect the gathering to catalyse fresh inflows of public and private capital into marine conservation and sustainable fisheries management.
Nigeria Watch
Nigeria’s participation in the Our Ocean Conference comes at a moment when the country’s blue economy agenda is still more aspiration than architecture. While the Tinubu administration has spoken broadly of harnessing Nigeria’s vast ocean resources — from fisheries and aquaculture to offshore energy and maritime tourism — the policy frameworks and funding mechanisms needed to convert that vision into commercial reality remain largely underdeveloped.
For Nigeria’s port operators, terminal managers and shipping stakeholders, the Mombasa summit carries practical significance beyond the diplomatic optics. International ocean governance commitments increasingly intersect with commercial maritime operations: stricter IUU fishing enforcement, expanded marine protected zones and emerging blue carbon markets all have direct implications for how shipping lanes, offshore logistics corridors and coastal port infrastructure are managed.
Equally notable is the investment dimension. The Our Ocean Conference has historically generated significant financing pledges for ocean-related projects. Nigeria’s ability to attract a share of that capital — particularly for port decarbonisation, offshore wind development and blue infrastructure along the Lagos-Calabar coastal corridor — will depend on whether Abuja can present bankable project pipelines backed by credible regulatory frameworks, rather than broad thematic declarations.
NIMASA’s ongoing efforts to modernise Nigeria’s maritime regulatory environment and the NPA’s port expansion programme are relevant foundations, but without coordinated blue economy legislation and dedicated funding mechanisms, Nigeria risks being a spectator at forums that are reshaping the global maritime investment landscape.
The question Mombasa should sharpen for Nigerian policymakers is straightforward: will the country leave with commitments, or with capital?
Waterways News — Covering Nigeria’s Maritime and Blue Economy Sector
How Liberia Turn Its Flag into a Maritime Goldmine — But the Profits Keep Sailing Away
The world’s largest ship registry sits in a West African nation with a $670 per capita income. The ships are everywhere. The money, largely, is not.
By Oghenewoke Osaweren | Waterways News
In the high-pressure world of global shipping, few decisions carry as much financial weight as where a vessel is registered. And right now, more shipowners are making that decision in favour of Liberia than any other country on earth.
As of June 2026, the Liberia-flagged fleet stood at 307.3 million gross tonnage — making the Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry (LISCR) the first registry in history to cross the 300 million GT threshold. It is the third consecutive year Liberia has held the title of the world’s largest shipping registry, widening its lead over its nearest rival by nearly 45 million gross tons.
The numbers are staggering. The Liberian Ship Registry now accounts for 17 percent of the global fleet, with 6,092 vessels flying its flag, and it represents 28 percent of global newbuilding gross tonnage — meaning more than one in four new ships entering the global fleet now does so under the Liberian colours.
But what pulls the world’s shipowners to a flag planted in one of West Africa’s most impoverished nations? And, critically, what is Liberia itself getting out of the arrangement?
THE MAGNET: WHAT SHIPOWNERS ARE REALLY BUYING
Established in 1948, the Liberian Registry has built its reputation on maritime safety, environmental standards, and administrative efficiency. Yet the hard commercial draw has always been simpler than that: cost reduction on a massive scale.
Shipowners choose Liberia’s open registry for lower taxes and reduced registration fees that can significantly slash operational costs, alongside the freedom to hire multinational crews at competitive wages — bypassing the higher labour costs imposed by national registries in Europe, Asia, or the Americas.
There are no crew nationality restrictions on Liberian vessels, and taxes are assessed at conservative rates based on net tonnage. For owners managing fleets of dozens of vessels, the cumulative savings run into tens of millions of dollars annually.
The registry is administered from Vienna, Virginia, with offices in New York, Hamburg, Hong Kong, London, Piraeus, Tokyo, Zurich, Singapore, and Monrovia, providing clients with 24-hour service. The bureaucratic friction that delays other registries simply does not exist here — a Liberian ship-owning corporation can typically be formed on the same working day instructions are received.
THE CHINA CARD
Beyond the traditional cost advantages, a newer and increasingly consequential incentive has emerged. Under a renewed maritime agreement with the People’s Republic of China, Liberian-flag vessels now enjoy preferential tonnage dues rates at Chinese ports, alongside expedited customs procedures and simplified port formalities — advantages that competing flags such as the Marshall Islands do not enjoy.
In a global shipping economy where China handles a dominant share of cargo, this diplomatic edge is no small commercial consideration.
LIBERIA’S GAIN — ON PAPER
Proponents of the arrangement argue that Liberia benefits meaningfully from the registry’s prestige and revenue. The Liberia Maritime Authority has described holding the world’s largest registry title as both an honour and a responsibility, with Commissioner Neto Zarzar Lighe Sr. pledging commitment to innovation and best practices expected of a Category ‘A’ member of the International Maritime Organisation’s Council.
The registry is reported to generate approximately 25 percent of Liberia’s national income — a figure that, if accurate, would represent a remarkable dependency on a single offshore arrangement. Liberian-flagged vessels also carry more than one-third of the oil imported into the United States, giving Liberia an invisible but powerful role in American energy supply chains.
THE UNCOMFORTABLE ARITHMETIC
But the glowing statistics mask a deeply troubling reality.
According to the Liberia Revenue Authority’s own records, the country received just US$12 million in maritime revenue in the 2019-2020 tax year from LISCR — amounting to only 2.75 percent of its total domestic revenue. More recent estimates place Liberia’s annual take from the registry at approximately $20 million.
Against a backdrop where Liberia’s total GDP stood at $4.75 billion in 2024, with a per capita income of just $670, the question becomes stark: who is really benefiting from the world’s most powerful shipping flag?
When over 130 countries representing 90 percent of global GDP came together in 2021 to agree a historic minimum corporate tax rate of 15 percent for multinationals, shipping alone was excluded — an arrangement that continues to shield the registry’s clients from the kind of global tax reform that would otherwise erode their savings.
The structural explanation is revealing. LISCR is a purpose-made limited liability company registered in Delaware and based in Virginia, with US nationals as exclusive investors under Liberian law — meaning the entity that manages the world’s largest shipping registry is legally and operationally American, not Liberian.
Even the United States Ambassador to Liberia has publicly acknowledged the gap, stating that “the revenue, jobs, and expertise generated by LISCR have the potential to benefit Liberia’s economy in nearly every sector” — while urging that maritime revenues be transparently incorporated into the national budget. The diplomatic phrasing barely conceals the implicit admission: the potential is there, but the delivery has fallen short.
A FLAG THAT FLIES EVERYWHERE, PROFITS THAT LAND NOWHERE NEAR MONROVIA
Liberian investigative voices have grown increasingly vocal, with local media questioning whether registry revenues are ending up in the pockets of a privileged few, including top officials and their political lawyers, rather than flowing into public coffers.
The ITF has long argued that the FOC system lets foreign shipowners use the Liberian flag to benefit from lax regulations and lower operating expenses, resulting in labour exploitation with little meaningful economic benefit returning to Liberia itself.
The paradox is stark enough to have earned a name in academic and policy circles. The downward drag that tax havens brought to government revenues worldwide was once commonly referred to as the “Liberian Problem.”
THE BIGGER PICTURE FOR AFRICA
For maritime-watchers across West Africa — and in Nigeria, where the inland waterways sector continues to seek investment and regulatory frameworks that actually serve national interests — the Liberian registry story carries a cautionary resonance.
A nation can sit at the centre of global maritime commerce, command the allegiance of 6,000 vessels flying its flag across every ocean, carry a third of America’s oil imports, and still struggle to translate that extraordinary leverage into domestic development. The ships sail. The registry grows. The flag waves on every sea.
The revenue, largely, waves goodbye with them.
waterwaysnews.ng covers rivers, coasts, creeks, and the full sweep of Nigeria’s blue economy.
Oil and Gas3 months agoTantita’s Pipeline Deal: $144m Contract, Rising Output, and the Questions that Deserve Answers
- MARITIME TRADE & SHIPPING3 months ago
World’s Largest Container Ship Sets New Maritime Record with 22,233 TEUs on Single Voyage
- Blue Economy4 months ago
Nigeria’s Coast Guard Bill: A Solution in Search of a Problem?
