TINUBU’S DESPERATION?
The $700bn Minerals Deal, Nigeria’s Resources and Questions Nigerians Deserve Answers To
By Sanusi Muhammad
Nigeria’s latest minerals agreement with the United States has generated intense public debate, and Nigerians are entitled to ask difficult questions about what exactly was signed, what the country stands to gain, and how its enormous mineral wealth will be protected.
The figure at the centre of the controversy is $700 billion.
But Nigerians must understand what that figure actually represents.
The Federal Government estimates Nigeria’s largely untapped solid-mineral resources at about $700 billion. The Nigeria–US agreement signed in New York is a framework intended to attract American investment into the country’s mining sector, covering areas including geological exploration, mineral development and processing, infrastructure and technical capacity.
That distinction, however, does not make scrutiny unnecessary.
Far from it.
If Nigeria is sitting on mineral resources estimated at $700 billion, then Nigerians have every right to demand maximum transparency over the framework through which foreign investors will participate in exploiting those resources.
What are the exact terms?
Which minerals and mining locations are covered?
What safeguards exist for Nigerian ownership, host communities and environmental protection?
How much investment will American companies actually bring into Nigeria?
How will revenues, royalties, taxes and other economic benefits be shared?
And, perhaps most importantly, will Nigerians see genuine local processing, jobs, technology transfer and industrial development—or will the country once again remain primarily an exporter of raw materials?
These are legitimate questions in a democracy.
The agreement has also emerged amid renewed controversy surrounding President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and US government records relating to an earlier FBI/DEA investigation. A US court proceeding concerning access to those records is ongoing, although the available court reporting does not establish that Tinubu has been criminally convicted in the United States, nor does it establish that the minerals framework was negotiated in exchange for suppressing or withholding those records. The Presidency has described the matter as a civil Freedom of Information dispute.
That distinction matters.
Political allegations should not be presented as established facts.
But neither should legitimate questions about national resources be dismissed simply because they are politically uncomfortable.
The Tinubu administration says the minerals framework is designed to attract investment, increase local value addition and move Nigeria away from the longstanding practice of exporting raw minerals while other countries capture much of the value through processing and manufacturing.
That promise should now be subjected to rigorous public scrutiny.
Nigeria has seen too many agreements whose benefits were celebrated before the public understood their full implications.
This time, Nigerians deserve to see the details.
A country with mineral wealth estimated at $700 billion cannot afford opaque arrangements, regardless of whether the prospective investors are American, Chinese, European, Middle Eastern or Nigerian.
The real question is therefore not whether Nigeria has “sold” $700 billion to America. There is no evidence establishing such a transfer.
The real question is whether Nigeria has negotiated a framework capable of ensuring that the enormous value of its mineral wealth ultimately benefits Nigerians—and whether the public will be allowed sufficient transparency to judge the answer.
Those responsible for governing Nigeria must understand that citizens are watching.
And Nigerians should remain awake, informed and demanding of accountability.
Muhammad is a commentator on national issues.