Nigeria’s Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has launched a formal investigation into suspected price fixing within the national cement industry.
The action follows a three-month cross-border study by the regulator’s Anticompetitive Practices Department, initiated after public outcry over soaring prices despite the country’s vast limestone reserves and immense production capacity.
The findings, detailed in a 40-page field report, reveal that local cement prices far exceed those in neighbouring African nations. In a statement released on Tuesday, FCCPC Director of Corporate Affairs Ondaje Ijagwu noted that the commission compared Nigeria’s market dynamics against those of Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Togo.
Data gathered by the watchdogs showed steep local price hikes throughout the year: In January, a 50kg bag retailed between ₦9,300 and ₦9,700. Mid-year, prices climbed to between ₦10,500 and ₦13,000. In July, regional peaks reached between ₦13,000 and ₦15,000.
By contrast, equivalent quantities of cement retail significantly lower elsewhere on the continent. In Kenya and Tanzania, bags sell for approximately $5.40 (₦7,344) and $4.80 (₦6,528) respectively, based on an estimated 2025 annual demand of around 9.3 million metric tonnes each. Even in Togo, which lacks indigenous limestone deposits, cement retails at roughly $6.75 (₦9,180) per bag.
The severe markup has raised red flags given Nigeria’s structural market advantages. The nation boasts an installed annual production capacity of 60 million to 65 million metric tonnes, and acts as a net exporter, against a domestic consumption rate of just 25 million to 30 million metric tonnes.
Industry manufacturers have cited high energy tariffs, the depreciation of the naira affecting imported spare parts and machinery, and elevated haulage costs as the primary drivers behind the surge. Economists and construction industry experts similarly acknowledge these compounding macroeconomic factors.
However, the regulator remains skeptical that operational expenses fully account for the disparity. The FCCPC confirmed it is actively cross-referencing industry explanations against verified operational costs, production volumes, and actual capacity utilisation.
“Findings from an industry-wide investigation conducted by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission suggest possible manipulation of prices of cement in the Nigerian market,” the statement read.
“Of particular concern to the commission is that this level of production capacity has not resulted in the downward pressure on domestic prices that might ordinarily be expected in a competitive market with substantial excess capacity.”
To determine whether current rates stem from legitimate overheads or unlawful practices, such as coordinated pricing, supply suppression, and distribution cartels, the commission has issued official Notices of Commencement of Investigation and Summons to Produce to major industry players. These directives compel manufacturers to submit comprehensive records detailing pricing formulas, export tallies, and corporate relationships.
“Next is to determine whether prevailing cement prices can be explained by legitimate costs and market conditions, or whether there is evidence of coordinated conduct, abuse of market power, restriction of domestic supply, anti-competitive distribution practices or other conduct contrary to the provisions of the FCCPA,” the commission stated.
The inquiry comes as inflated building costs squeeze the national real estate sector and delay key public infrastructure projects. Emphasising the necessity of the intervention, FCCPC Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Tunji Bello highlighted the commodity’s systemic role in economic development.
“Cement occupies a strategic place in the Nigerian economy. Its price affects the cost of building a home, developing commercial property, delivering public infrastructure and, ultimately, the cost of doing business. When concerns persist about how such an important market is functioning, the Commission has a duty to look beyond assumptions and establish the facts,” Bello said.
Bello added that the probe is not intended to cap legal profits or micro-manage commercial enterprises.
“Businesses are entitled to make legitimate commercial decisions and earn returns on their investments. Competition law does not prevent that. Its purpose is to protect the competitive process, so that prices, output and other market outcomes are determined by genuine competition rather than conduct that unlawfully restricts it,” Bello said.