Nigeria's petrol imports reached a record high of N15.42 trillion in 2024, marking a 105.3 percent increase from the N7.51 trillion recorded in 2023, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) Foreign Trade Statistics Report.

The surge in imports occurred despite growing domestic refining capacity, with Belgium accounting for over N3.69 trillion of the imported products. Quarterly data shows imports valued at N2.63 trillion in Q1, N3.22 trillion in Q2, N3.32 trillion in Q3, and N3.3 trillion in Q4.

This sharp increase came when expectations were high for reduced reliance on foreign fuel following significant investments in local refining. Despite the commencement of operations at the 650,000-barrel-per-day Dangote Petroleum Refinery, the 210,000bpd Port Harcourt Refining Company, and the Warri Refining and Petrochemical Company in December 2024, these facilities have yet to reach full production capacity to meet domestic demand.

Major oil marketers imported 6.38 billion litres of petrol and diesel in the past five months, with marketers bringing in 2.3 billion litres between September and December 2024 alone. The Executive Secretary of the Major Energies Marketers Association of Nigeria, Clement Isong, defended importation, stating it "contributes to the market's competitiveness" and helps drive down prices.

Overall, Nigeria conducted foreign trade worth N138 trillion in 2024, spending N60.5 trillion on imports while earning N77.4 trillion from exports, resulting in a trade surplus of N16.8 trillion. Crude oil dominated exports with sales of N55.28 trillion, accounting for 68.87 percent of total exports in Q4.

Agricultural goods imports increased by 53.35 percent in Q4 compared to the same period in 2023, while raw material imports rose by 118.17 percent. Europe remained Nigeria's major trading partner with goods worth N34.14 trillion, followed by Asia (N20.6 trillion) and America (N13.43 trillion).​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG) has revealed that 30% of Nigeria’s 24 million registered Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) shut down between 2023 and 2024 due to mounting economic challenges. This alarming trend was highlighted during the launch of the “2025 Private Sector Outlook: Adapting to Economic Uncertainties for Growth and Resilience” in Lagos.

Segun Omisakin, Chief Economist and Director of Research at NESG, outlined the key risks faced by businesses during this period. These include foreign exchange (FX) shortages and volatility, with the naira averaging N1,479.9 per dollar in 2024; rising public debt, which reached N142.3 trillion as of September 2024; and the exit of multinational companies, which, alongside MSME closures, resulted in an estimated N94 trillion economic loss. Omisakin also pointed to structural issues such as insecurity, inadequate infrastructure, and limited market access as significant hurdles for the private sector.

Despite some positive developments, such as improved foreign exchange availability due to policy reforms and a 3.4% GDP growth in 2024—the highest since 2021—businesses continued to struggle with rising costs, inflationary pressures, and policy uncertainty. Wonu Adetayo, NESG Board Director, noted that while reforms like fuel subsidy removal and exchange rate harmonisation boosted investment levels, stagnant productivity and macroeconomic imbalances worsened living standards and economic distress.

During a panel discussion, Dele Kelvin Oye, President of the Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines, and Agriculture (NACCIMA), emphasised the importance of policy stability for attracting foreign direct investment. He urged the government to act as a facilitator rather than a competitor in economic affairs and called for greater inclusion of business organisations in key negotiations to ensure broad-based economic benefits.

Other panellists echoed these sentiments, warning against government overreach into private sector affairs and advocating for stronger collaboration between the public and private sectors. They stressed the need for active involvement of business associations like the Nigerian Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME), the Nigerian Association of Small-Scale Industrialists (NASSI), and the Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association (NECA) in economic decision-making.

The NESG also highlighted the lack of immediate monetary interventions following the fuel subsidy removal, which exacerbated inflationary pressures, and criticised inconsistent Customs regulations and fluctuating exchange rates as deterrents to investment and operational stability. To address these challenges, the NESG proposed a framework of economic stabilisation, consolidation, and acceleration, emphasising the need for policies that enhance private sector competitiveness and monitor reform efficacy.

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russian forces take three new settlements in drive to oust Ukrainian forces in Kursk

Russian forces on Sunday recaptured three more settlements in Russia's western Kursk region, the Defence Ministry said, part of an operation to evict Ukrainian troops holding chunks of territory seven months after a cross-border incursion.

The ministry statement, posted on the Telegram messaging app, followed reports by Russian bloggers that Russian special forces had crept for miles through a gas pipeline near the town of Sudzha in an attempt to surprise Ukrainian forces.

The three settlements now under Russian control according to the ministry -- Malaya Lokhnya, Cherkasskoye Porechnoye and Kositsa -- all lie north of Sudzha.

"The Russian Federation's armed forces are continuing to rout groups of the Ukrainian army on the territory of Kursk region," the statement said.

The earlier report by Russian bloggers on the pipeline operation appeared to be a ruse aimed at cutting off thousands of Ukrainian soldiers in the region ahead of Ukrainian talks with the United States on a possible peace deal to end the war.

Ukrainian troops seized about 1,300 square km (500 sq. miles) of Russia's Kursk region in August in what Kyiv said was an attempt to gain a bargaining chip in future negotiations and to force Russia to shift forces from eastern Ukraine.

Russia has been pressing its drive to regain control of the region with some success in recent days. Open source maps on Friday showed Kyiv's contingent in Kursk nearly surrounded after rapid Russian advances.

"The lid of the smoking cauldron is almost closed," former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Telegram. "The offensive continues."

Yuri Podolyaka, a Ukrainian-born, pro-Russian military blogger, said Russian special forces crept nearly 16 km (10 miles) along the inside of the 1.5 metre wide gas pipeline and spent several days in the pipe before surprising Ukrainian forces from the rear near Sudzha.

Pro-Russian war blogger Two Majors said a major battle was under way for Sudzha and that Russian forces had surprised Ukrainian soldiers by entering the area via a gas pipeline.

EUROPEAN FEARS

A statement from Ukraine's airborne assault forces said that Russian soldiers had used the pipeline in an attempt to gain a foothold, but the Russians were promptly detected and attacked with rockets, artillery and drones.

The Ukrainian military's General Staff in a late afternoon report said its forces repelled 15 Russian attacks in Kursk region, with six armed clashes still ongoing. It also reported 12 Russian air strikes on their positions.

Russian advances in 2024 and U.S. President Donald Trump'supending of U.S. policy on Ukraine and Russia have raised fears among European leaders that Ukraine will lose the war and that Trump is turning his back on Europe.

The United States paused military aid and the sharing of intelligence with Ukraine this month after a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on February 28 descended into acrimony in front of the world's media.

In an earlier update on the situation in Kursk, Russia's Defence Ministry said its forces had retaken the village of Lebedevka, as well as seizing Novenke, a hamlet across the border in Ukraine's neighbouring Sumy region.

Moscow made no official mention of the pipeline operation, but Major General Apti Alaudinov, commander of Chechnya's Akhmat special forces, reposted pictures on Telegram of special forces inside a gas pipeline.

"I am surprised by people who really think that Russia could lose," Alaudinov said. "It is a good day."

Russian Telegram channels showed pictures of special forces in gas masks and lights, some using colourful colloquial Russian curses, as they made their way along the inside of what looked like a large pipe.

Owing to battlefield reporting restrictions on both sides, Reuters was unable to verify the reports.

KURSK INCURSION

The Soviet-era Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod pipeline used to bring gas from western Siberia via Sudzha to Ukraine but Ukraine terminated all Russian gas transit through its territory from January 1.

Ukraine's incursion into Kursk in August was the most serious attack on Russian territory since the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

Another war blogger, Yuri Kotenok, said Ukrainian forces had been moving equipment from Sudzha, closer to the border.

The Russian offensive raises a serious tactical conundrum for Ukraine just as the spring thaw turns roads to mud tracks: Should it withdraw from Kursk, and if so, can it do so without a disorderly rush to the border under intense Russian fire?

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has led to the biggest confrontation between the West and Russia since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

In the eastern Donetsk region, where Russian forces have made slow but steady progress during gruelling fighting in what was once Ukraine's industrial heartland, Moscow said on Sunday that its forces had taken the village of Kostyantynopil.

In a part of Ukraine's southern Kherson region held by Russian forces, Russia-installed officials said Ukrainian forces launched a missile attack on a busy market in the town of Velyki Kopani. Russian news agencies quoted local health officials as saying the strike killed two people and injured seven.

Reuters could not independently verify the report.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine strikes market in Russian town with HIMARS – governor

The Ukrainian military launched two HIMARS rockets directly at the stalls of a market in the town of Veliky Kopani in Russia’s Kherson Region on Sunday, according to regional governor Vladimir Saldo. The attack left several civilians dead and “a lot” wounded, Saldo said, citing preliminary data.

Dozens of civilians were at the market when at least two projectiles fired from a US-supplied M142 HIMARS multiple rocket launcher struck the location, according to a Telegram post by Saldo, which included images from the aftermath. The photos show one building badly damaged, with thick smoke billowing from it.

Footage circulating online shows a destroyed van ablaze outside of the market, with an injured – or possibly dead – person lying next to it.

A paramedic and driver with the local emergency medical services were also injured in the attack, the regional health minister, Elena Borchaninova, told TASS. At least seven civilians were injured in the attack with one subsequently succumbing to his injuries, the ministry’s press service told the news agency.

The exact number of casualties has not yet been officially established, as the wounded are still being transferred to hospitals. At least some of the victims were sent to the coastal city of Skadovsk, located some 20 km to the south of Veliky Kopani.

“The information is still preliminary. We are waiting for all the victims. They have been sent to the Skadovsk hospital. So far, only two have been brought in. Unfortunately, one of the two has died,”the Health Ministry told RIA Novosti.

Kiev has been receiving M142 HIMARS and its heavier tracked cousin, the M270 MLRS, since mid-2022 from the US and other Western backers. The systems, once touted as a key tool for striking high-value Russian assets, have routinely been used by Kiev for indiscriminate strikes on civilian targets deep beyond the frontline.

Reuters/RT

The political control of the resources of the territory known as Rivers State in Nigeria’s Niger Delta has been a site of curious jurisprudence since the Acting Consul of the Oil Rivers Protectorate, Harry Johnston, procured the judicial liquidation of King Jaja of Opobo in December 1887 in Accra, present capital of Ghana. The charge against King Jaja was the violation of a treaty obligation to assist the British “in the execution of such duties as may be assigned.” At the end of proceedings, which lasted less than one day, before a forum described by Elvar Ingimundarsson as a “Kangaroo court”, King Jaja was convicted and sentenced to exile. The court also prohibited the people of Opobo from designating a replacement for him.

At the end of February, Nigeria’s Supreme Court continued a tradition of afflicting the people of the territory of Rivers State with curious jurisprudence. Separated by 137 years, the decision of the Supreme Court in the latest of the legal disputes from the political rift between incumbent governor, Siminalayi Fubara, and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, reprises essential parallels with the trial and exile of King Jaja with haunting similarity.

Now, as then, the underlying dispute is really about “a treaty”; in this case allegedly between the governor and his predecessor, the terms of which also appear to be about “the execution of such duties as may be assigned….” The court orders are against a ruling figure (Governor Fubara) from Opobo and the political effect is to seek to exile him from office while precluding any other Opobo person from replacing him.

Context is necessary to understand the case that the Supreme Court had to decide. Going into the 2023 election, the governor of Rivers State, Nyesom Wike, was term-limited. In 2020 and 2021, he publicly declared that he would not impose a successor on the state. In 2023, he did. His choice was a little-known public servant from Opobo-Nkoro, Sim Fubara. After the election, their relationship disintegrated. The reasons are subliminal in this case; the consequences are explicit.

In December 2023, the 27 members of Rivers State House of Assembly loyal to Wike, including the Speaker, Martin Amaewhule, ostentatiously announced that they had defected to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). In 2015, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that such defection is permissible only if the political party from which the legislators seek to defect is so hopelessly splintered that it “makes it impossible or impracticable for [the] political party to function as such.” If not, according to the court, “the defector automatically looses (sic) his seat.”

With the defection of Martin Amaewhule and his 26 other colleagues, the House of Assembly of Rivers State became factionalised. The remaining five members were loyal to the incumbent governor. Shortly after the defection of the Amaewhule faction in December 2023, the premises of the Rivers State House of Assembly were demolished, ostensibly on the orders of the state government. The faction loyal to the state governor relocated to the Government House where, shortly thereafter, it purported to pass into law the 2024 Appropriation Bill for the State, which became law when the governor promptly assented to it.

The outbreak of litigation that followed has been inexhaustible. The appeal determined by a five-person panel of the Supreme Court on 28 February is one them. Essentially, it sought orders to restrain the Central Bank of Nigeria from remitting to Rivers State, its share of the proceeds from the Federation Account, except to finance a budget passed by the Amaewhule faction of the State House of Assembly. In other words, this was litigation asking the judiciary to take sides in what is in fact a very grubby dispute over control of Rivers State’s money.

This case traveled up to the Supreme Court with supreme alacrity. The Federal High Court delivered judgment on 30 October 2024, a mere three-and-a-half months after filing on 15 July. Not wishing to be outdone, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment on 13 December 2024, less than a month-and-a-half later. The Supreme Court has been equally supersonic in bringing the case to judgment.

The Supreme Court dealt with two issues when it should have addressed at least three. First, it affirmed the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear the case. Next, on the question of whether the rump of the House of Assembly of Rivers State loyal to the governor could constitutionally sit to pass the 2024 budget, it held that they could not. In support of this position, the court cited precedent applicable to when the legislature sits on impeachment, a special procedure for which the constitutionally prescribed parliamentary arithmetic is different.

The third issue, it left unattended. The Court simply proceeded without deliberation or reasoning to grant all the orders asked for.

An injunction, the principal relief sought in this case, is notoriously a remedy in equity, only granted deliberatively. Over one century ago, the path-breaking decision in The Lusitania laid down the principle that “as a general rule of both civil and common law…. the remedy must be commensurate with the injury received.”

There are four glaring problems with this Supreme Court judgment. The first is not what is in it but what is missing. Lawyers claim that “equity does not act in vain.” The Supreme Court did not bother to provide any reasoning or justification for its orders, leaving it open to legitimate accusations of having acted in vain or in a transaction. Granting the court every latitude on the violations that it found, its orders are an unreasoned overreach.

Second, ordering the Central Bank to withhold Rivers state’s share of the Federation Account is at best a rogue order that punishes the people for a dispute between politicians. It violates the maxim that “equity regards the beneficiary (in this case the people of Rivers State) as the true owner.” Their right to their share of the Federation Account is antecedent to, independent of, and unconnected with the dispute in this case.

Third, being aware of the ongoing litigation on the legal consequences of the defection of the Amaewhule faction of the State House of Assembly, the Supreme Court short-circuited a contingent appellate process and issued dispositions on a dispute that was neither before it nor necessary for the determination of the issues it was called upon to decide. In doing so, the court chose with a touch of injudicious shamelessness to accept the invitation to take sides in the underlying political dispute in Rivers State.

Fourth, the Supreme Court announced revolutionary jurisprudence on the judicial fly, claiming that, in cases where there is a disputed defection, “[o]nly the [legislature] can declare a seat vacant for defection and not the Governor of a State. Not even the Courts can do so.” It takes heedless audacity for an apex court to castrate the judiciary. That is exactly what the court did with this line in italics. When the Supreme Court laid down the contrary principle in 2015, it was by a panel of seven Justices. This Supreme Court purports to overrule that principle without even citing, acknowledging, or considering its earlier decisions on the same point. Moreover, a five-person panel of the Supreme Court cannot overrule a seven-person panel.

When Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, showed up reportedly to turn the sod on proposed judicial digs with Wike last October, there were unheeded warnings then concerning the prohibitive institutional costs of such dalliance with a notorious political litigant who has a reputation for instrumentalising the courts. Many will look at this recent decision from the Supreme Court and say “we told you so.” For the CJN, it will be argued that she was not on the panel; to which the response will be, she chose the judges and constituted the panel.

On 1 December 1887, the Kangaroo court of Rear Admiral Walter Hunt-Grubbe ruled that the presence of King Jaja in Opobo “would be fatal” to British commercial interests and authorised his eventual exile to West Indies. The judgment was widely seen as a transactional travesty and its effect, it was said, was “to haunt the British colonial administration in West Africa for a long time.” It may similarly be said of what the courts of post-colonial Nigeria did in the 137th year of that iniquity that they sought in another transactional travesty to exile another figure from Opobo from his position because his presence would be fatal to the interests of Nigeria’s most prolific political litigant. 

** Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a professor of law, teaches at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and can be reached through This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

A recent report by the Cadre Harmonisé (CH) on Acute Food and Nutrition Insecurity has projected that 30.6 million people across 26 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) will face a food crisis between June and August 2025. The report, conducted by federal and state governments with support from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other development partners, highlights that this figure includes 150,978 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).

Currently, an estimated 24.9 million people, including 116,765 IDPs, are already experiencing a food crisis, a situation that could worsen by May 2025. The CH analysis warns that during the lean season from June to August, households are likely to face increased food shortages, potentially pushing more people in high-risk areas into critical food insecurity.

The report identifies conflicts, climatic shocks, and macroeconomic reforms as key factors driving the crisis. These challenges have limited households' purchasing power and ability to secure adequate food. Additionally, the analysis highlights critical levels of acute malnutrition in the Northeast, particularly in Central Borno, Northern Yobe, and parts of Eastern Sokoto. Local Government Areas such as Mobbae and Ngarcail in Northern Borno, as well as Mashi in Northern Katsina, are among the most affected.

The primary drivers of the food crisis include ongoing conflict and insecurity—such as insurgency, banditry, and kidnapping—as well as high vulnerability levels that hinder households' ability to cope with shocks. Other contributing factors are soaring food prices, dwindling household food stocks, limited income-generating opportunities, inadequate food consumption, and poor access to clean water and sanitation.

FAO Country Representative Koffy Dominique praised the Federal Government and stakeholders for completing the February-March 2025 CH analysis cycle, which began on February 20 across 26 states and the FCT. He noted that Nigeria has experienced its worst inflation in over two decades, exacerbating economic hardship for many families and making it increasingly difficult to afford food and essential goods. Dominique also pointed to the devastating impacts of extreme weather events, such as flooding, alongside armed conflict and organized crime, which have prolonged insecurity and worsened food insecurity.

The CH analysis workshops, held twice a year, aim to identify populations and areas at risk of food and nutrition insecurity and propose measures to prevent or mitigate crises. Dominique emphasized the importance of these efforts in addressing the country's growing food security challenges.

Marcus Ogunbiyi, Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Aviation, highlighted the role of fuel subsidy removal and insecurity in driving up food prices. Represented by Okwudule Onyema, Director of Food and Strategic Reserve, Ogunbiyi reaffirmed the government's commitment to leveraging the CH report's findings to tackle the food and nutrition crisis. He also called on humanitarian organizations to use the report to guide their interventions nationwide.

The report underscores the urgent need for coordinated action to address the root causes of food insecurity and prevent further escalation of the crisis.

Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has thanked the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, for reassigning his case to a new judge. The decision comes after Kanu raised concerns about bias in his trial before Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court.

In a statement released on Saturday by his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu expressed gratitude to the CJN and the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, John Tsoho, for acting on his request to transfer the case. He also thanked the public for their support in demanding a fair reassignment of the trial.

Kanu’s legal team confirmed that they had received two letters from the CJN and Tsoho, notifying them of the case’s transfer to another judge. This development follows Kanu’s earlier complaint about Nyako’s refusal to recuse herself from the trial, which he claimed was marred by bias.

During a court session on February 10, Kanu had openly criticized Nyako, accusing her of partiality and insisting that she step down from presiding over his case. His legal team argued that the proceedings under her oversight posed a threat to Kanu’s constitutional rights, including his entitlement to a fair and speedy trial.

Ejimakor stated, “Nnamdi Kanu instructed the legal team to publicly convey his sincere gratitude to the Chief Justice of Nigeria for her sound administrative discretion and the promptness with which she responded to our request. He also expressed profound appreciation to members of the public who supported our call for the case to be reassigned, as the law demands.”

The lawyer emphasized that Kanu has always been prepared to face trial, confident in his innocence. However, the events of the past six months—since September 2024, when the recusal issue arose—had raised serious concerns about the fairness of the proceedings. Ejimakor added, “We were compelled to take extraordinary measures to ensure that his case is properly reassigned and conducted in accordance with the law.”

With the case now reassigned, Kanu and his legal team are preparing to focus on building a robust defense. The development marks a significant step in addressing concerns over judicial fairness in the high-profile trial.