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.
$200m Fish Lifeline: FG Taps World Bank Funds to Push States Towards Fish Sufficiency
Oyetola Sets Sights on Net Exporter Status as FG Secures $200m World Bank Backing for State-Led Aquaculture
By Okeoghene Onoriobe | Waterways News
The Federal Government says it has secured a $200 million commitment from the World Bank Group to drive fisheries and aquaculture production nationwide, as it moves to cut fish imports and close a supply gap of more than 2.2 million tonnes.
The money will be lent to state governments on concessional terms. It is meant to help them expand fish production, attract investment and build viable aquaculture projects.
The Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Dr Adegboyega Oyetola, announced this at an Executive Training on the Aquaculture Investment Guide, organised by his ministry with the World Bank Group in Abuja. He was represented by the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Marine and Blue Economy, Professor Busayo Fakinlede.
Oyetola said fish is central to food security, household nutrition and rural livelihoods, and that Nigeria cannot be food secure while importing most of its fish. He said the goal is to “produce more, import less” and eventually become a net exporter, which he said requires every state to play its part.
The numbers
Nigeria needs about 3.6 million tonnes of fish a year but produces roughly 1.4 million tonnes. Imports cover the gap and cost nearly $1 billion annually in foreign exchange.
State-driven framework
Under the ministry’s framework, each state is expected to:
identify priority aquaculture value chains
assess investment readiness
develop bankable project pipelines
commit to measurable contributions to national fish output
The training brought together commissioners from Rivers, Bayelsa, Delta and Cross River States, plus permanent secretaries and directors of fisheries and aquaculture from across the federation. It covered business models, risk management, environmental and social safeguards, and public-private partnerships.
A Federal-State interface is also planned to coordinate a national fish security strategy.
Oyetola commended the World Bank for its support on analytical studies, cluster-based development, capacity building and the Aquaculture Investment Guide. He will oversee a post-training stakeholders’ roundtable with states and other stakeholders to sustain momentum.
Ministry’s scorecard
Fakinlede credited the minister’s leadership for:
the August 2026 inauguration of the Technical Committee on Accelerating Fish Production
digitisation of fish import licensing
a rise in national output from 1.1 million to 1.4 million tonnes
US shrimp-export certification after compliance with Turtle Excluder Device requirements
the Fish City and Fish Terminal investment portfolio to attract private capital
NIGERIA WATCH
Read the fine print. As of 9 November, I could not find a published World Bank project document for the $200 million, and the figure rests on the ministry’s statement. The repayment period, interest rate, per-state allocation and disbursement date have not been made public, and it is unclear whether this is new money or part of financing already agreed. Waterways News should press the ministry on these before treating the figure as settled.
Loans, not grants. States carry the debt and must show bankable projects. Strong states like Rivers, Bayelsa, Delta and Cross River, whose commissioners attended, sit on the water and are best placed to benefit. Inland and riverine communities lacking project-preparation capacity risk being left behind.
The missing small operators. The framework speaks of investors, PPPs and bankable pipelines. It says little about artisanal fishers, boat operators and fishing communities, including those represented by WABOTAN and ATBOWATON, who supply and move much of the country’s fish. Without cold chains, landing jetties, safe water transport and affordable engines, higher production will not reach markets.
Policy versus delivery. The target is ambitious, with output reportedly up from 1.1 million to 1.4 million tonnes. Yet Nigeria still meets under 40 per cent of its fish demand, and it has heard similar promises before, from the Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund onward. The test is whether the roundtable produces dates, allocations and measurable state commitments.
Blue Economy
Oyetola Takes Nigeria’s Case on Gulf of Guinea Security and Seafarer Welfare to IMO Council in London
Oyetola Takes Nigeria’s Case on Gulf of Guinea Security and Seafarer Welfare to IMO Council in London
Minister says seafarers must not become casualties of geopolitical disputes as Nigeria presses for stronger technical support for developing maritime nations
By Ighoyota Onaibre | Waterways News
Nigeria’s Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Dr. Adegboyega Oyetola, has restated the country’s commitment to safe, secure and sustainable international shipping. He is leading a high-level delegation to the 138th session of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Council in London.
The five-day session opened on November 2 at the IMO headquarters and ends today, November 6, 2026. Nigeria’s participation is meant to strengthen its voice in global maritime governance and to advance the interests of developing maritime nations.
Nigeria sits on the 40-member Council under Category C. The session is considering the protection of vital shipping routes, the welfare and safety of seafarers, institutional governance and the sustainability of the global maritime industry.
Protecting vital shipping lanes
A central issue is the protection of strategic shipping routes against growing security threats and attacks on commercial vessels in high-risk zones. Under Agenda Item 11, “Protection of Vital Shipping Lanes,” Nigeria is expected to draw on its experience combating piracy and maritime crime in the Gulf of Guinea to push for stronger international cooperation and coordinated security responses.
“Nigeria recognises that the challenges confronting the global maritime industry require collective action, stronger international cooperation and effective regulatory frameworks,” Oyetola said. He added that Nigeria was at the Council to see its interests represented and to contribute to solutions that strengthen maritime security, protect seafarers and promote sustainable shipping.
He said the progress made in the Gulf of Guinea showed that maritime insecurity can be tackled “through political commitment, effective coordination and cooperation among regional and international partners.”
Seafarer welfare
Seafarer welfare is also high on the agenda. This follows IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez’s condemnation of the use of seafarers as pawns in geopolitical disputes. Nigeria is backing measures to prevent the arbitrary detention and abandonment of seafarers, and to ensure their fair treatment, safe repatriation and mental well-being.
“Seafarers are the lifeblood of international shipping,” Oyetola said. “Their safety, dignity and welfare must never be compromised by geopolitical tensions.”
Budget and capacity building
The Council is also reviewing financial allocations for the 2026–2027 biennium and strategic priorities for 2028–2029. Nigeria sees this as an opening to push for more technical cooperation and capacity-building support for developing maritime countries.
Oyetola said developing maritime nations “must have access to the technical expertise, institutional support and investment opportunities required to participate meaningfully in the evolving global shipping industry.”
The delegation
The minister is accompanied by:
The Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, Mrs. Fatima Mahmood
The Director-General of NIMASA, Dr. Dayo Mobereola
The Director of Maritime Services, Mr. Oyinloye Meshack
Nigeria’s Alternate Permanent Representative at the IMO, Mr. William Bwala
Nigeria Watch
A heavy session. The Council has dealt with more than Nigeria’s agenda this week. Other delegations have also pressed seafarer protection and freedom of navigation, with Liberia and Indonesia among the countries that raised them. The session has also given attention to security in the Strait of Hormuz and the Black Sea. On Wednesday, the Council recommended a second four-year term for Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, running from 2028 to 2031. The IMO Assembly must still approve it in 2027. Nigeria’s message on the Gulf of Guinea has been delivered in a crowded room.
Hormuz is a Nigerian issue. This newsroom has followed the Strait of Hormuz crisis closely, from rising freight rates to war-risk insurance premiums at Nigerian ports. Oyetola’s call to shield seafarers from geopolitical tension is not abstract. Dominguez has said thousands of seafarers in the region live and work under heightened risk, and the IMO’s tally of seafarers killed in the region since February stood at 24 as of November 5.
Where the Gulf of Guinea story stands. Nigeria is presenting its Gulf of Guinea record as a model, and the Deep Blue Project is the backbone of that claim. NIMASA has just showcased upgraded assets at AFRIDEX 2026. Delegates in London will weigh the narrative against what stakeholders at home actually experience on the water.
The home test. Nigeria’s arguments at the IMO for seafarer dignity, fair treatment and capacity-building support will carry weight in proportion to how well they are matched at home.
Questions that Waterways News continues to raise:
Do Nigerian seafarers and inland waterway workers enjoy the safety and welfare standards the minister is championing abroad?
Will the technical cooperation Nigeria is seeking reach small-scale and informal waterway operators, such as those under WABOTAN and ATBOWATON, or stay at the policy level?
With Nigeria holding a Council seat, how will diplomatic wins in London be turned into delivery at home, from CVFF disbursement to NPERA implementation?
Waterways News will keep tracking the outcome of the 138th Council session and what it means for Nigerian maritime stakeholders.
Blue Economy
NIWA Deploys Enforcers to Niger Waterfronts as Boat Operators Cry Out Over Life Jacket Shortage
NIWA Deploys Enforcers to Niger Waterfronts as Boat Operators Cry Out Over Life Jacket Shortage
Operators say a 300-seater has only seven jackets, and ask for prices to drop from N20,000 to as low as N5,000
By Raymond Gold | Waterways News
The National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) has sent enforcement personnel to waterfronts across Niger State to make life jacket use compulsory and ensure compliance with inland waterways safety rules.
NIWA’s Minna Area Manager, Akapo Adeboye, announced this at the 2026 Sensitisation and Enlightenment Campaign on Inland Waterways Regulations at Zumba Waterfront, Shiroro Local Government Area. The campaign theme was “Total Safety Measures and Compliance on the Nation’s Inland Waterways.”
Adeboye said NIWA has given 3,500 life jackets to boat operators at waterfronts across the state. He was troubled, however, that some operators neither wear the jackets nor provide them for passengers during trips.
He also condemned operators who charge passengers extra to use a life jacket, saying this discourages compliance. He said the safety of lives and property remains a priority of the Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, and that operators and passengers alike must wear life jackets before boarding. Violators, he warned, will face the full weight of the law.
Some operators at the event said scarcity and cost make full compliance impossible.
Adamu Gunduma said his boat carries 300 passengers but he has seven life jackets, one of them for himself. The other six go to passengers on a first-come, first-served basis.
Adamu Tanko said his 150-passenger boat has three life jackets.
Saidu Sani said his 40-passenger boat has none, for himself or his passengers.
Abubakar Mamman-Kwanu appealed to government and other stakeholders for more jackets through donations and support programmes.
The operators said a life jacket costs about N20,000 on the market and asked authorities to bring the price down to between N5,000 and N6,000. They added that high prices and falling farm-produce prices could keep many farmers from buying one. Farmers, they said, make up a large share of water transport users in the area. They called for stronger government intervention, arguing that easier access to life jackets would improve compliance and prevent avoidable deaths.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) first reported the development on Monday.
Nigeria Watch
Enforcement is arriving before supply. Gunduma, Tanko and Sani together operate boats licensed for 490 passengers, yet they reported 10 life jackets between them. Telling such operators to refuse boarding without a jacket is, for now, an order they cannot obey. Cheap jackets must reach waterfronts before penalties are enforced, or enforcement will fall hardest on the poorest operators.
NIWA has also faced a misuse problem. Adeboye said in an earlier interview that people sell the jackets, use them as pillows or farm tools. He said that when his team revisited a waterfront after a 3,500-jacket flag-off, they could not find one in use. Both complaints can be true at once, and the way out is a mix of local ownership, fitting by boat capacity and visible checks by marshals.
The stakes are real and well documented. After a July 2025 mishap at Zumba, Adeboye said 26 passengers wearing life jackets were rescued alive, 15 bodies were recovered and three people were missing. He noted that the incident came eight days after a NIWA sensitization campaign at the same waterfront.
Marshals and penalties are already in place. Waterways marshals were inaugurated at Zumba to enforce transport regulations. Adeboye has also said NIWA gazetted penalty codes for operators and passengers who fail to comply. The open question is whether operators get realistic access to compliance before sanctions bite.
Questions for NIWA and the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy:
How many jackets are needed to cover the licensed capacity of boats at Niger waterfronts, against the 3,500 supplied?
Can bulk procurement or local assembly bring the N20,000 price down?
Will NIWA publish compliance figures and sanctions issued after the campaign?
Oil and Gas8 months agoTantita’s Pipeline Deal: $144m Contract, Rising Output, and the Questions that Deserve Answers
MARITIME TRADE & SHIPPING8 months agoWorld’s Largest Container Ship Sets New Maritime Record with 22,233 TEUs on Single Voyage
Blue Economy9 months agoNigeria’s Coast Guard Bill: A Solution in Search of a Problem?