NIGERIA–U.S. MINERALS PACT: THE BIGGER QUESTION NIGERIANS MUST ASK
For Immediate Release — 27 September 2026
I have followed with interest the recent strategic minerals agreement between the Federal Government of Nigeria and the United States. On September 23, 2026, Nigeria’s Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Dr Dele Alake, and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau signed a framework in New York aimed at encouraging American investment and cooperation across Nigeria’s solid-minerals value chain. The Nigerian government estimates the country’s mineral resources at approximately $700 billion.
This potentially represents a major economic opportunity for Nigeria, but it should also cause Nigerians to ask serious questions about our country, our institutions and the way international interests operate. For months, Nigeria’s relationship with the United States has included discussions around insecurity, religious freedom, killings and the protection of vulnerable communities. Nigeria also remains under scrutiny in relation to religious-freedom concerns.
Now, critical minerals have become an increasingly important part of the Nigeria–U.S. relationship, and Nigerians should watch developments carefully. This does not mean that the minerals agreement automatically guarantees that Nigeria’s Country of Particular Concern designation will disappear. There is presently no verified evidence that the United States has agreed to remove the designation in exchange for access to Nigerian minerals. Neither should Nigerians assume that legitimate concerns surrounding religious violence, insecurity and accountability will simply disappear because major commercial interests are now involved.
However, this situation exposes a deeper Nigerian problem. Yesterday, it was crude oil. Today, it is lithium, gold, tin and other critical minerals. Tomorrow, it may be something else. Nigeria possesses enormous natural wealth, yet millions of Nigerians continue to struggle with poverty, unemployment, insecurity and inadequate infrastructure. That is why celebrating a $700 billion mineral estimate is not enough. The real question is how much of that wealth will actually improve the lives of Nigerians.
Nigeria cannot afford to repeat what happened with crude oil, where enormous resources were extracted for decades while many producing communities continued to struggle with underdevelopment, environmental damage and unemployment. We must not simply move from oil dependency to mineral dependency.
If foreign companies are coming to Nigeria, there must be clear benefits for Nigerians through local processing, technology transfer, employment, technical training, infrastructure development, environmental protection, community participation, transparent licensing, transparent revenue and meaningful Nigerian participation in the value chain. Minister Dele Alake has publicly stated that Nigeria does not intend to remain merely a supplier of raw materials while other countries capture most of the value. That commitment must now be measured against implementation.
Nigerians should pay attention to what happens next. Who receives the major licences? Who are the beneficial owners of the companies? Where will the minerals be processed? How much value will remain inside Nigeria? What agreements will be reached with host communities? What environmental protections will be enforced? Most importantly, will areas containing strategically important minerals suddenly receive the level of security attention that communities have demanded for years? These are legitimate questions in a democracy.
There is also a need to correct another assumption circulating publicly that this new relationship means charges against President Bola Tinubu will be dropped. The current U.S. litigation generating public discussion is a Freedom of Information Act records-disclosure matter involving requests for historical law-enforcement documents. It is not a current criminal prosecution of President Tinubu. Therefore, Nigerians should not describe the minerals agreement as causing criminal charges to be dropped when that does not accurately reflect the present court matter. Political criticism is strongest when it is built on verifiable facts.
America will pursue American strategic interests. China will pursue Chinese strategic interests. European countries will pursue their own interests. There is nothing unusual about that. The real question is whether Nigeria is equally prepared to pursue Nigerian interests. If America wants our minerals, let American businesses invest. If China wants them, let Chinese companies compete. If European companies want to participate, let them bring capital, technology and expertise. But Nigeria must negotiate from a position that ensures our natural resources build our industries, employ our people, strengthen our communities and develop our country.
Nigeria’s problem has never simply been a lack of natural resources. Our greater challenge has been our inability to build strong institutions, manage resources transparently, confront insecurity, tackle corruption and translate national wealth into measurable improvements in people’s lives.
The Nigeria–U.S. minerals agreement could become an important economic opportunity, but Nigerians must keep watching. Watch the contracts, watch the licences, watch the security arrangements, watch the money and watch the foreign-policy language. Most importantly, watch whether the communities sitting on top of these enormous mineral deposits actually benefit from what lies beneath their feet.
The question is not whether Nigeria has wealth. We already know that. The question is whether Nigeria will finally use that wealth to build Nigeria, or once again supply the raw materials that help build everybody else.
SIGNED
Engr. Charles David
Duke of Jos
27 September 2026
Comments
Post a Comment