Cover StoryEconomyOpinion

Why is Mining a Curse in Nigeria?

6 Mins read

“We strongly recommend a suspension of mining exploration for six months to allow proper audit and to arrest the menace of artisanal illegal mining”

The Forum

By Taiwo Adisa,

In December 2025, Northern governors and traditional rulers met in Kaduna to dissect the unbearable state of insecurity in the region. After a long deliberation at the Sir Kashim Ibrahim House, Kaduna, the forum released its communique, which contained a long list of action points. One of the requested measures the forum suggested was a six-month ban on mining activities by the Ministry of Solid Minerals Development.

According to the forum, the attacks on schoolchildren and other citizens had become “unacceptable tragedies” which required “firm response” from the government of the day. “We resolved to renew our support for every step taken by the President and Commander-in-Chief to take the fight to insurgents’ enclaves to end the criminality,” the forum said.

Specifically on illegal mining, the forum said that criminal mining networks have been fuelling violence in the region and that, as a corrective measure, the administration of President Bola Tinubu should direct the Minister of Solid Minerals to impose a six-month suspension on mining activities to allow for proper audit and revalidation of licenses. “The Forum observed that illegal mining has become a major contributory factor to the security crises in Northern Nigeria.

“We strongly recommend a suspension of mining exploration for six months to allow proper audit and to arrest the menace of artisanal illegal mining,” the forum said.

No matter the defence anyone wants to put up in favour of the mining sector as far as its links with criminality are concerned, the sector is guilty as charged. The half-hearted regulatory measure in the sector provides opportunities for operators to arm mining hands and, in the process, enable gun and light weapons to filter into criminal elements who, in turn, wreak havoc on Nigerians in the name of kidnapping, banditry, and terrorism.

The coincidences are just too striking. In Zamfara State, the start of gold mining in commercial volume marked the take off of high velocity crime in that area. Before then, we used to hear of cattle rustling as the major security headache. The rustlers usually come from across the borders, and the Nigerian security system was able to contain that onslaught. With the coming of gold mining in the state, the situation escalated to kidnapping for ransom, banditry, and the rise of organised criminal gangs, including the rise of dreaded bandit, Bello Turji, and others.

 

In February 2024, reports emanated that a task force set up by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) arrested 41 suspects and 12 truckloads of lithium and other solid minerals in Ilorin, Kwara State. The items were said to have originated from parts of Oyo State. Again, in January 2026, reports indicated that the Ministry of Solid Minerals Development, in collaboration with the Department of State Services (DSS), arrested seven trucks loaded with lithium and assorted solid minerals also in Ilorin. The items equally emanated from parts of Oyo State. On the heels of those reports came the attack by bandits on the Old Oyo National Park office in Oriire local government of Oyo State. You can see how criminality trails illegal (even legal) mining. It emerged that most of the illegally siphoned minerals were mined from the park. That allowed the unwholesome infiltration of the bandits, who have now launched their guns.

But mining is not necessarily associated with such pains as banditry and crime in other lands. According to available records, the top five countries ranking in tens of billions from mining in the world include China, the United States of America, Russia, Australia, and India. In that order. China, which produces five billion tons of minerals from Rare earths (69.2%), lithium, graphite, cobalt, and magnesium rakes in over $30 billion from Rare earths and coal alone, while the US with 2.3 billion tons of minerals comprising huge deposits of Copper, gold, silver, platinum, lithium, and molybdenum is reported to have started generating at least $109.6 billion annually from 2015. Russia, on the other hand, produces 1.6 billion tons of minerals and recently raked in $216 billion as a result of a gold windfall. As of 2020, Australia’s 1.3 billion tons of minerals contribute 10.4 per cent of its GDP and bring in $270 billion into its economy. India, with 1.2 billion mineral productions, equally rakes in billion dollars annually from the sector. In comparison, Nigeria has only just started earning some benefits from its mineral resources at the national level. Before now, as soon as the miners secured their licences legally or illegally from Abuja, they locate the sites and disappear from the radar of the supervising ministry.

Reports indicated that Nigeria, with over 40 commercially viable solid minerals, including gold, lithium, tin, niobium, coal, and rare earth elements, reported a 337% revenue increase in the sector when its earnings surged from ₦16 billion in 2023 to ₦38 billion in 2024. The earnings were expected to go above N70 billion in 2025. Despite the heroics of galloping income, it is clear that the country only earned a paltry $49 million from the sector when the earnings are converted to US Dollars. This is an infinitesimal amount when compared to the billions earned by the top five mining countries. But do these countries with huge pay from mining also face the kind of nefarious acts that mining has imposed on Nigeria? There is no such evidence. In China, there are reports of Illicit rare earth mining, environmental degradation, and human rights abuses. The United States also reports issues around Illegal mining, environmental damage, and labour exploitation, while Russia reports organized crime involvement, corruption, and environmental degradation. In Australia, there were reports of environmental vandalism, tax evasion, and indigenous land rights issues, and in India, issues of illegal mining, corruption, and environmental destruction have been reported. Globally, mining has been linked to conflicts with communities, human trafficking, corruption, money laundering, environmental pollution, and deforestation. Nowhere in the top mining countries have we heard about banditry, terrorism, and kidnapping, as we’ve seen in Nigeria in recent years. So, why is mining a curse rather than a blessing here? The answers are not that far-fetched. The supervising ministry has a lot to share in the blame. Even when there are reports that the ministry is stepping up its efforts in recent times, the toll on the people is heavier than the gains. Why is the type of supervision and metering applied in the oil sector missing in mining? Even though we have issues of stolen crude (something I don’t find justifiable anyway) in that sector, at least there is an attempt at accountability.

The resource curse is evident everywhere in the Nigerian mining sector. Rather than orchestrate accelerated development, mining in the country has generated underdevelopment, crimes, inequality, and conflict. Illegal mining has been the source of major crimes in states like Zamfara, Nasarawa, and now Kwara and Oyo. There are pockets of criminal activities in Osun State as well, with banditry, kidnappings, and arms trafficking threatening the peace of the people. Besides banditry, rising criminal networks, and exacerbating violence, there are also indications that communities are being displaced, while environmental damage, deforestation, water pollution, and lead poisoning have been experienced in parts of the country. Environmental and health risks from unregulated mining often bypass benefits, and the boldness with which the elite are flaunting their illegal mining skills is staggering. There are reports that most of the gold and minerals mined in Zamfara and other states are often transported through the private wings of the airports in Kano, Abuja, and Lagos. The country is the poorer for that. But recent interceptions in Kwara and Oyo States could serve as a pointer towards efforts aimed at stalling the massive resource theft that has characterised the sector.

 

News from this sector has not been all doom, though. Reports are indicating that the sector’s contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has markedly improved, especially from the second quarter of 2025, when it reached approximately 4.6 per cent, rising from less than 0.5% a decade earlier. Even though there is no uniformity in the figures in circulation, as some reports cite around 1.8% overall contribution, increased regulation in the sector could boost revenue further and also enhance the nation’s capacity to diversify its oil-reliant economy. Recent announcement of the commissioning of a high-purity gold refining plant in Lagos (a private initiative) and the upcoming $600 million lithium processing plant in Nasarawa State are key developments that could write off some of the burdens mining activities have imposed on Nigeria.

With improved technology, security crackdowns like empowerment of Mining Marshals and value-addition, the sector, which employs a lot of local hands, can fast-track the push to end illegal operations and mitigate the resource curse. Therefore, to turn the resource curse into a blessing, the country must adopt a zero-tolerance policy on illegality, prioritize community benefits, invest in sustainable practices, and accelerate value chains. If the Ministry of Solid Minerals were to sustain the gains of 2025 by implementing transformative procedures, mining could just emerge as one sector that would drive inclusive growth in the country and shift the people away from the agonising era to that of economic boom.

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com