What the government is proposing
On September 23, 2025, senior officials from the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) gathered at a press conference to dissect a draft policy that would see the federal government relinquish a sizable portion of its ownership in joint‑venture oil fields. According to the draft, the state’s share—currently hovering between 55% and 60%—could be trimmed to as low as 30% in some projects and roughly 35% in others. The official line, voiced by PENGASSAN President Festus Osifo, is that the sale would free up cash for other budgetary priorities.
The assets under discussion are chiefly those operated through the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd), the commercial arm of the state oil monopoly. By selling stakes to private or foreign investors, the government hopes to inject liquidity, reduce its fiscal burden, and ostensibly improve efficiency through greater private sector participation.
Union backlash and feared repercussions
The unions fired back hard. In their view, the Nigeria oil asset sale is a short‑term fix that could cripple the country’s long‑term oil earnings. Osifo warned that slashing government participation would "mortgage Nigeria’s future" and could push NNPCL toward insolvency. Both unions argue that the plan threatens three core pillars of the sector:
- Revenue: A reduced state share would mean less dividend flow into the federal treasury, narrowing the fiscal space needed for infrastructure and social programmes.
- Employment: Many of the 150,000 workers represented by NUPENG and PENGASSAN are employed directly by joint‑venture projects. A change in ownership could lead to restructuring, layoffs or contract renegotiations that undermine job security.
- Industry stability: The sudden shift in ownership patterns could unsettle existing contractual arrangements, disturb supply chains, and erode investor confidence in the regulatory environment.
Beyond the economic arguments, the unions highlighted procedural concerns. They claim the plan was drafted behind closed doors, without stakeholder consultation, and that key details—such as the identities of potential buyers and the valuation methodology—remain opaque. This secrecy, they argue, fuels speculation about whether the assets could be sold at undervalued prices, benefitting a select few at the expense of the nation.
In response to the government’s silence since the press briefing, union leaders signalled readiness to mobilise. While they stopped short of announcing a strike, they hinted at a range of actions, from industrial protests to legal challenges in court. Their message was clear: any attempt to push the divestment forward without addressing the unions’ grievances would meet “stern resistance”.
Analysts observing the standoff note that the oil sector remains Nigeria’s largest source of foreign exchange, accounting for roughly 90% of export earnings. A sudden dip in government receipts could force the Treasury to look elsewhere for revenue, potentially reviving controversial taxes or levies that have historically strained relationships with oil companies.
Meanwhile, regional oil-producing states have also voiced concerns. Governors from the Niger Delta region, where many of the joint‑venture fields are located, warned that reduced federal control could diminish the flow of development funds to local communities, reigniting long‑standing grievances over environmental degradation and lack of local benefits.
As the debate unfolds, the key question remains whether the government will adjust its strategy to accommodate union demands or press ahead with the sale. The outcome will shape not only Nigeria’s fiscal outlook but also the broader narrative about how resource‑rich nations balance immediate cash needs against long‑term sovereignty over strategic assets.