The Nigerian government’s attempt to ban large-capacity fuel tankers from its roads has been beset by delays and contradictions, raising concerns about safety and transparency. Initially announced in February 2025, the ban aimed to prohibit trucks carrying more than 60,000 liters of hydrocarbon products from loading at depots and utilizing federal roads, effective March 1, 2025. This decision followed a spate of fatal accidents involving petrol tankers, resulting in the tragic loss of 493 lives over three years. The move was widely lauded by industry stakeholders and the public, with some even hailing it as the best decision made by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) in 2025. However, the promised enforcement of the ban quickly unraveled, mired in conflicting reports and alleged industry pressure.
Despite the NMDPRA’s public pronouncements of the ban’s commencement, industry operators revealed a different reality on the ground. They claimed that the enforcement had been postponed to September, then October, due to lobbying efforts by major oil marketers with significant operations in the North. These marketers, reportedly including prominent names like AA Rano and AYM Shafa, argued that the initial timeframe was too short to adapt to the new regulations, given their heavy reliance on large-capacity tankers for transporting fuel to the northern regions. This pressure, according to industry insiders, successfully swayed the NMDPRA to delay implementation, raising doubts about whether the ban would ever be fully enforced.
The NMDPRA, through its spokesperson, vehemently denied these claims, insisting that the ban was in effect and being strictly adhered to by all marketers and dealers. However, these assertions were contradicted by on-the-ground reports from private depot marketers and the National Association of Road Transport Owners (NARTO). These sources confirmed that 60,000-liter trucks continued to load and operate as usual, with the ban seemingly applying only to tankers exceeding this capacity. This discrepancy between official statements and observed reality fueled suspicions of undisclosed agreements and backroom deals between the regulatory authority and influential industry players.
The conflicting narratives surrounding the ban highlight a concerning lack of transparency in the government’s handling of the issue. While the NMDPRA maintains a facade of enforcement, industry insiders point to a more complex scenario involving negotiations and compromises. This opacity raises questions about the government’s commitment to prioritizing public safety over the interests of powerful oil marketers. Depot marketers, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisal, admitted that the ban was not implemented due to intense lobbying, further corroborating claims of industry influence. They argued that the sudden ban would have significant financial repercussions for marketers who had invested heavily in large-capacity tankers, often financed through bank loans.
NARTO President Yusuf Othman confirmed the non-enforcement of the ban, acknowledging ongoing discussions with the Federal Government to find a workable solution. He highlighted the potential job losses that the ban would cause, estimating that over 2,000 drivers operating tankers exceeding the 60,000-liter limit would be out of work. This underscores the complexity of the issue, encompassing not only safety concerns but also economic considerations and the livelihoods of thousands of tanker drivers. The government’s challenge lies in balancing these competing interests while ensuring the safety of its citizens.
The stalled implementation of the tanker ban reveals a deeper issue: the potential influence of powerful industry players over regulatory decisions. While the government’s initial intentions may have been driven by genuine safety concerns, the subsequent delays and contradictions suggest a susceptibility to industry pressure. The lack of transparency surrounding the decision-making process further erodes public trust and raises concerns about the government’s ability to effectively regulate the petroleum sector. This episode underscores the need for greater accountability and transparency in policy implementation, ensuring that public safety is not compromised by the lobbying efforts of powerful interest groups. The ultimate question remains: will the government prioritize the safety of its citizens or succumb to the pressures of industry stakeholders, potentially jeopardizing lives in the process?
