The Presidency has risen in strong defence of President Bola Tinubu’s Executive Order halting revenue deductions by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and other agencies, insisting that the directive is firmly grounded in the supremacy of the Nigerian Constitution.
The move has triggered intense debate across the legal, labour and business communities, with senior advocates, industry unions and private sector leaders expressing sharply divided opinions on the scope and legality of presidential powers.
Reacting to the controversy, the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said the criticism from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria stemmed from a poor understanding of constitutional provisions. He argued that the Petroleum Industry Act cannot supersede the Constitution and that any law conflicting with constitutional principles must give way.
Onanuga explained that the Executive Order draws authority from Section 5 of the 1999 Constitution, which vests executive powers in the President to implement laws and safeguard constitutional order. He added that Section 44(3) further empowers the Federal Government with ownership and control over all mineral resources, including petroleum.
According to him, the directive aims to restore constitutionally guaranteed revenue entitlements of federal, state and local governments, which he said were eroded by provisions in the Petroleum Industry Act that allowed multiple statutory deductions.
The Presidency maintained that unchecked deductions had created channels for significant revenue losses and that the Executive Order was necessary to block leakages and ensure transparency in public finance.
However, PENGASSAN countered that the directive could severely weaken NNPCL’s operational capacity and hinder statutory obligations, including funding critical exploration initiatives. The union warned that the move could destabilise the petroleum sector if not reviewed.
Presidential media aide Sunday Dare also defended the directive, noting that Section 80(1) of the Constitution mandates all federally generated revenue to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. He stressed that Executive Order 9 merely operationalises existing constitutional requirements and does not seek to repeal or amend any law.
Dare added that if any dispute arises over the directive, the courts remain the appropriate avenue for resolution, while the executive must continue to protect public funds pending judicial clarification.
The legal community has remained deeply divided. Several Senior Advocates of Nigeria faulted the Executive Order, arguing that the President lacks the authority to override or suspend an Act of the National Assembly through an executive instrument.
The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Afam Osigwe (SAN), maintained that executive orders are administrative tools and cannot substitute legislative processes. He stressed that only the judiciary can pronounce on constitutional inconsistencies in laws passed by parliament.
Other senior lawyers echoed similar views, warning that allowing executive directives to override legislative acts would undermine the doctrine of separation of powers and weaken democratic governance.
They argued that where constitutional concerns exist, the proper route is either legislative amendment or judicial interpretation, not unilateral executive action.
Conversely, a minority of senior advocates defended the order, contending that the President is constitutionally obligated to uphold constitutional supremacy and prevent ongoing fiscal practices that may violate constitutional revenue structures.
They argued that while executive orders cannot repeal legislation, the President retains the power to direct executive agencies to administer laws in a manner consistent with constitutional provisions, especially where public revenue is concerned.
Beyond legal circles, leaders of Nigeria’s organised private sector downplayed fears that the directive would scare investors. Instead, they described the move as a step towards enhanced transparency and accountability in the oil and gas sector.
The Director-General of the Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association, Adewale Oyerinde, said the Executive Order aligns with global investor expectations for transparency and predictability. He noted that improved revenue clarity would strengthen investor confidence rather than weaken it.
Similarly, the President of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Leye Kupoluyi, urged calm, saying the directive reflects a broader effort to promote honesty and policy consistency. He added that better financial discipline within NNPCL could even strengthen the company’s corporate structure and long-term growth prospects.
Kupoluyi described the development as largely an internal restructuring exercise between the government and its oil company, stressing that it poses no threat to private investors or joint venture partners.
As debates continue across legal, political and economic fronts, the Executive Order remains a central test of constitutional authority, fiscal accountability and the balance of power among Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
Be the first to comment