Dangote vs. NUPENG: Is the Fuel Consumer the Real Casualty?

In escalation of Nigeria’s downstream energy tensions, Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, publicly accused the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) of imposing hidden levies as high as ₦50,000 per truck loading fuel at his refinery. He warned that such charges are not borne by industry players but are ultimately passed on to consumers — further inflating already sky-high pump prices.

That allegation is now reverberating across the oil, labour, and regulatory sectors, prompting pointed questions about union authority, supply chain bottlenecks, and the delicate balance between workers’ rights and consumer protection.

Speaking to journalists in Lagos, Dangote was blistering in tone. He claimed that NUPENG had been tacking on additional demands, sometimes amounting to ₦48,000 to ₦50,000 per truck load, which in turn compound with other charges to push loading costs up to ₦80,000–₦84,000 per truck. “So, who pays for that cost? The consumer actually pays,” he declared.

Dangote framed the move as a form of rent‑seeking — a mechanism that discourages efficiency and forces extra burden on end users. He recalled earlier phases of his fuel‑importing operations, when transporters allegedly “held Dangote by the neck,” prompting the group to build out an in‑house logistics fleet. Now, with the deployment of 4,000 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) trucks, Dangote said, the firm would not permit any group to “hold us hostage.”

On unionization, he reiterated that membership should remain voluntary. “If anybody wants to join the union … go and join. But it must be voluntary,” he said, comparing forced union membership to forced conversion in religion.

Contacted for comment, Williams Akporeha, President of NUPENG, offered a cryptic riposte: “N50k (₦50,000) now? No more ₦1 per litre?” He declined to confirm or deny the accusation.

Earlier, the union had responded to viral allegations that it imposed a ₦1 per litre charge on all loaded fuel by insisting that such claims be backed by proof. “One can’t stop people from having their opinion. Ask who alleges to provide proof,” Akporeha said.

NUPENG, in turn, has accused Dangote of reneging on a government-brokered memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed on September 9, 2025, which affirmed workers’ rights to unionize. The union claimed that within days, Dangote management ordered the removal of union stickers from trucks and directed non‑union vehicles to forcefully load fuel, in violation of agreed protocols.

In one statement, NUPENG charged that Dangote was waging a campaign to “crush NUPENG and its PTD Branch,” using front associations, undermining union legitimacy, and deploying muscle tactics such as helicopter flyovers and security backing.

Amid mounting tension, the National Industrial Court in Abuja intervened, granting an interim injunction restraining NUPENG and affiliated truck driver groups from blocking roads, shutting down operations, or compelling union membership.

The court held that the refinery might suffer irreparable harm if blockades continued, and noted that fundamental rights of assembly and association must be respected under the Constitution and trade-union laws.

The restraining order is temporary — in force for seven days pending a full hearing — but underscores how quickly the dispute has escalated into legal territory. Meanwhile, several industry associations and stakeholders have voiced support for Dangote’s stance, accusing NUPENG of wielding undue influence, economic coercion, and operating beyond its mandate.

Energy law and public policy experts have weighed in with skepticism about whether a labour union has the legal authority to impose per‑truck levies.

Professor Dayo Ayoade, a specialist in energy and regulatory policy, argued: “The job of a union is to assist its members and protect their jobs, but it doesn’t have a right to tax or collect fees for fuel loading. Is NUPENG now a tax‑collecting agency? That is the question.”

He sees Dangote’s strategy of vertical integration (owning transport operations) as a hedge against union pressure: “If truck drivers are independent of the union, no one body can hold the entire country to ransom. Let competition reign. NUPENG should make itself attractive so drivers join voluntarily.”

Analysts also warn that if such levies are real and widespread, they amount to a hidden tax on energy consumers — a distortion to a sector already stressed by foreign exchange challenges, logistics, and infrastructure deficits.

One petroleum sector insider, speaking under condition of anonymity, estimated that loading costs in depots often hit ₦60,000 to ₦80,000 per tanker, with union and affiliate dues contributing significantly.

Marketers have similarly complained that the layers of internal charges — from NUPENG, PTD (Petroleum Tanker Drivers), depot levies, branch dues, insurance, and more — can push the total cost to load a 45,000‑litre tanker to ₦70,000 or more.

It is not just the primary union under fire: the Association of Distributors and Transporters of Petroleum Products (ADITOP) has long accused NUPENG and affiliated bodies of extortion, calling the multi‑layer levies “economic sabotage.”

In one striking claim, ADITOP alleged that NUPENG, through its PTD arm, collects an extra ₦1 per litre in addition to loading charges of ₦80,000–₦100,000 per truck.

Now, new revelations from Dangote Refinery management suggest that the impact of the ongoing standoff could be even more staggering than initially understood. According to a statement from the refinery’s management, the figure of ₦1.505 trillion is the estimated annual impact of the subsidy or discount marketers are allegedly pressuring the refinery to absorb. The figure is based on Nigeria’s daily usage of 40 million litres of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and 15 million litres of Automotive Gas Oil (AGO).

The statement reads: “Based on daily consumption volumes of 40 million litres of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and 15 million litres of Automotive Gas Oil (AGO), this amounts to an additional annual cost of ₦1.505 trillion (₦1,505,625,000,000), which they effectively asked the refinery to absorb or pass on to Nigerians.

“Specifically, the marketers are demanding that we discount ₦70/litre in coastal freight, NIMASA, NPA and other associated costs as well as ₦5/litre for the cost of pumping into vessels to enable them to transport products from our refinery to their depots in Apapa and sell at the same price as our gantry.

“We wish to make it clear that we have no intention of increasing our gantry price to accommodate such demands, nor are we willing to pay a subsidy of over ₦1.5 trillion, a practice that historically defrauded the Federal Government for many years. DAPPMAN and other marketers are welcome to lift products directly from our gantry and benefit from our logistics-free initiative.

“Between June and September, the refinery exported a combined total of 3,229,881 metric tonnes of PMS, AGO, and aviation fuel, while marketers imported 3,687,828 metric tonnes over the same period, an action that amounts to dumping, which is detrimental to the Nigerian economy and the well-being of its citizen.

“We enjoy strong working relationships with government agencies and remain committed to supporting their efforts, while not hesitating to hold institutions accountable where necessary.

“Dangote Petroleum Refinery remains firmly committed to the progress and well-being of Nigeria, and is open to partnerships with patriotic stakeholders.”

Dangote is not standing idle. The company has already rolled out 4,000 CNG-powered tankers for fuel distribution, partly to bypass reliance on external transporters. Beyond that, the conglomerate recently disclosed acquisition of 6,000 dry cargo trucks for movement of coal and other commodities — part of a broader logistics modernization drive.

Management argues that the deployment of its own fleet ensures smoother evacuation, tighter cost control, and insulation from union holdouts. In public statements, Dangote claimed its drivers earn salaries “three times the minimum wage” and enjoy health, life insurance, and pension benefits.

But critics accuse Dangote of trying to sideline unions altogether, pointing to its insistence on voluntary unionization and reported actions to remove union branding from trucks.

The standoff, therefore, is not only about pricing, but about control over labour, logistics, and the mechanics of union power in Nigeria’s energy sector.

This conflict is far from technical or intracompany — its real victims could be Nigeria’s ordinary citizens. Fuel pump prices are already vulnerable to external pressures: foreign exchange volatility, import logistics, infrastructure constraints, and fiscal burdens. Any additional hidden fee in the supply chain magnifies price shocks at the pump.

If Dangote’s claims are verified, the per‑truck levies effectively become a shadow surcharge layered onto fuel — an indirect tax that bypasses oversight. That raises critical policy questions: Should there be regulatory ceilings or transparency requirements for such loading fees? Is there a legal basis for labour unions to impose such charges beyond membership dues? Could the government intervene to “audit” and validate the legitimacy of levies in the downstream sector? How can the state balance protecting workers’ rights with shielding households and businesses from unpredictable costs?

Observers have urged the Federal Government to act swiftly to investigate the allegations, tighten regulation of loading fees, and clarify the limits of union powers. Some have called the dispute a testing ground for Nigeria’s capacity to deploy functional markets in essential services.

On the labour side, international norms