When a billionaire suddenly becomes an overnight anti-corruption crusader, one should pause. Not because activism is wrong, but because power rarely moves without an agenda. In Nigeria’s oil sector—where money, regulation, and influence intersect—nothing happens in isolation.
I was drawn into this debate long before the current drama peaked. In July 2024, during the first public clash between Alhaji Aliko Dangote and Engr. Farouk Ahmed of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA), I wrote an article titled “Monopolistic Oligarchies: The Tale of Dangote of Nigeria and Ambani of India.” In it, I defended indigenous industrial growth while warning against the dangers of unchecked monopoly, no matter how patriotic its face.
My position, then as now, was about balance.
Dangote is unquestionably a transformational investor. His refinery promises energy security, job creation, and reduced imports. Nigeria needs such bold industrial ambition. However, history also teaches that when one player becomes too dominant, competition suffers, regulation weakens, and markets become tilted dangerously. Indigenous success should be supported—but not worshipped.
On the other side stood Engr. Faruk Ahmed. I was openly critical of his public demarketing of Dangote refinery products, arguing that the regulatory posture was poorly timed and counterproductive. Regulators exist to enforce standards fairly, not to appear hostile to local breakthroughs. Excessive rigidity can sabotage domestic investment just as surely as a monopoly can distort markets.
ALSO READ Why I petitioned ICPC against Farouk — Dangote
That article triggered reactions from all sides—public commentary, private calls, quiet lobbying. It was clear the fault line ran deeper than personalities. What we were witnessing was a struggle over market policy: local refining versus entrenched import interests; regulation versus industrial power; control versus competition.
What Nigerians know about Dangote is largely public. From a young trader to Africa’s richest man, he built an empire that sometimes seems to rival the Nigerian state itself—especially when one remembers that government-owned refineries in Kaduna, Warri, and Port Harcourt have remained largely comatose for years.
What many Nigerians did not know—until I began making inquiries—was the reputation Faruk Ahmed enjoyed among his staff and associates. They described him as humble, soft-spoken, blunt, and deeply professional. An engineer trained abroad, a former Apple Computer engineer in the United States, before returning, where he held some of the most sensitive positions in Nigeria’s oil bureaucracy, including PPMC, PPPRA and NNPC, without scandal. They insisted he was content, incorruptible, and difficult to intimidate. That image made the latest turn of events all the more puzzling.
After months of relative calm following the 2024 dispute, Dangote returned—this time with heavier artillery. He publicly accused Farouk Ahmed of spending between $5 and $7 million on foreign secondary education for his children in Switzerland, petitioned anti-corruption agencies, and pursued legal action that ultimately coincided with Ahmed’s exit from office and the nomination of a successor.
Then came the silence. Faruk Ahmed reportedly declined to engage in a public rebuttal, expressing confidence that investigative institutions would clear his name. In theory, silence can be dignified. In practice—especially in Nigeria—silence in the face of explosive corruption allegations often reads as surrender.
This is where the question becomes unavoidable: if a man is truly incorruptible, why retreat so quietly from the battlefield of public opinion? If he dared to accuse a powerful billionaire of attempting to monopolise Nigeria’s oil sector with inferior products, why did he lack the resolve to defend himself against allegations that ended his career?
Was he fighting someone else’s battle? Was he a pawn in a larger chess game between capital and regulation? Or was his silence a strategic miscalculation in a country where narrative often becomes verdict?
In Nigeria, perception is punishment. To be accused is already to be half-convicted in the court of public opinion. Silence does not buy you time; it cedes the ground entirely. A regulator who leaves such allegations unanswered risks not only his own reputation but the credibility of the institutions he once led.
From all indications, this saga is far bigger than Dangote versus Faruk. It is about who controls Nigeria’s energy future, how regulation is wielded, and whether the state can balance powerful private capital without becoming either captive or combative.
But one lesson is already clear: in a country where corruption allegations are both weapon and verdict, silence is rarely golden—especially if one claims to be innocent. Or is it a case of being used and dumped after satisfying the unseen forces? Time will tell where the truth finally lands.
*Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of “A Dozen Tips for Media Relations”
Email: yashuaib@yashuaib.com
