ABUJA – A fresh constitutional dispute is unfolding after the Nigerian Bar Association publicly questioned President Bola Tinubu’s authority to issue Executive Order 9 of 2026.
The directive affects how the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited remits oil revenues to the Federation Account and has triggered an unusual clash between the Presidency and the country’s top legal body. At issue is whether the President can alter revenue mechanisms established under an Act of the National Assembly without first seeking legislative amendment or judicial review.
The Presidency describes the move as a restoration of constitutional order. The NBA calls it executive overreach.
Nigeria is now confronting a deeper institutional question: can a President override an Act of Parliament through executive order?
Fast Facts: The Executive Order 9 Dispute
The Directive: Mandates NNPCL to remit 100% of oil revenues to the Federation Account immediately.
The Conflict: The Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021 allows NNPCL to retain 30% for management and exploration.
The NBA’s Stance: Only the National Assembly can amend an Act; an Executive Order is subordinate to a Statute.
The Government’s Stance: The Constitution (Section 162) is supreme and forbids any "deductions" before remittance.
The Core Legal Dispute
Constitution vs the Petroleum Industry Act
The controversy centres on the Petroleum Industry Act, enacted in 2021 after nearly two decades of legislative delay. The law transformed the former state oil corporation into a limited liability company with commercial status and granted it authority to retain defined percentages of oil proceeds.
Presidential aides point to Section 162(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which says money collected by the federation should be paid into the Federation Account. In their reading, that language leaves little room for deductions before remittance.
From the Presidency’s perspective, the hierarchy of laws is clear. The Constitution sits above every statute. If any section of the Petroleum Industry Act allows funds to be withheld before reaching the Federation Account, officials argue that provision cannot stand against the supreme law.
The NBA disagrees, not necessarily on constitutional supremacy, but on process.
NBA President Afam Osigwe, SAN, has stated that even if a law is unconstitutional, a President cannot amend or nullify it by executive fiat. Under Nigeria’s separation of powers, only the National Assembly can amend legislation, and only the courts can strike down an Act.
The dispute therefore turns less on oil revenue and more on institutional boundaries.
The Fiscal and Economic Stakes
The legal question is significant. The economic consequences may be even greater.
Under the PIA framework, the NNPCL retained funds for operational costs and frontier basin exploration. Executive Order 9 removes that retention structure and mandates full remittance before any allocation.
Immediate Impact
- Management and cost recovery deductions are halted.
- The 30 percent Frontier Exploration Fund structure is effectively suspended.
- Federation Account allocations to states are likely to increase in the short term.
For state governments already benefiting from elevated oil receipts, the move is financially attractive.
Emerging Pushback
Labour unions have begun to react. The Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) warned that removing retained earnings could limit the company’s ability to finance exploration and operational expansion.
Several industry observers say the Petroleum Industry Act was meant to create a stable framework after years of uncertainty in the oil sector. Changing key financial provisions midway, they argue, could unsettle investors who based long-term decisions on the existing law.
Oil projects are rarely short-term ventures. Exploration, field development and infrastructure financing often run for years before returns are realised. For that reason, consistency in the rules matters almost as much as the price of crude itself.
The Political Dilemma: Who Will Challenge It in Court?
The NBA’s criticism raises a practical question: who has standing and incentive to sue?
State governments are currently receiving robust monthly allocations due to increased remittances. Challenging the order could reduce short-term fiscal inflows.
Governors must therefore weigh immediate financial gain against long-term constitutional clarity.
Civil society organisations could initiate litigation. So could industry stakeholders. Political appetite for confrontation, however, remains uncertain.
Nigeria’s judiciary, often criticised for delay and inconsistency in politically sensitive cases, may ultimately become the decisive arena.
The Doctrine of Covering the Field
Legal analysts point to a well-established constitutional principle known as the doctrine of covering the field.
When Parliament has already passed a detailed law on a subject, lawyers say the executive is expected to operate within that framework. In practical terms, that means a presidential directive cannot simply override or rewrite provisions that lawmakers have already approved.
Three vulnerabilities confront the administration.
Legislative Supremacy
The PIA expressly outlines revenue retention mechanisms. An executive order is subordinate to statute.
Separation of Powers
Even those who question parts of the PIA say the process matters. Some lawyers argue that if there are genuine constitutional doubts about the PIA, the issue should be tested in court or taken back to the National Assembly for amendment. Moving ahead through an executive directive instead, they contend, risks stretching presidential authority into territory traditionally reserved for lawmakers and judges.
Contractual Stability
Beyond the courtroom, industry players are watching closely. Many companies structured their investments around the financial terms set out in the PIA. If those terms change abruptly, it may prompt questions about the reliability of Nigeria’s policy environment. In certain cases, disputes could be pursued through arbitration clauses already embedded in existing contracts.
The Presidency, however, will rely on constitutional supremacy. Section 1 of the 1999 Constitution declares the Constitution binding on all authorities. If a statute conflicts with it, the statute must yield.
The unresolved issue is not supremacy, but procedure.
What This Really Means
Executive Order 9 is not simply an oil policy adjustment. It is a test case for executive power in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic.
President Tinubu’s reform posture, centred on revenue centralisation and remittance discipline, resonates politically. Transparency in oil revenue has long been a public demand.
But constitutional democracies are judged not only by outcomes, but by adherence to process.
If the courts determine that the President effectively amended an Act of Parliament without legislative involvement, the administration could face a significant judicial setback.
If the judiciary upholds the order on constitutional grounds, it would strengthen executive authority in revenue governance and reshape the balance between statute and presidential directive.
Either way, the oil sector has become the arena for a broader constitutional recalibration.
