Anglo-Dutch energy giant Shell Plc paid a record $5.34 billion to the Nigerian government in 2024, its highest remittance to any country last year, even as it continues a strategic exit from onshore oil operations in Nigeria.

This figure, disclosed in the company’s recently published Payments to Governments report for 2024, significantly outpaces what it paid to any other host country, including oil-rich Oman, Brazil, Norway, and Qatar.

The report, a regulatory requirement under UK law, is designed to improve transparency around the financial relationships between extractive companies and the governments of the countries in which they operate. Nigeria’s top spot on Shell’s payout list once again underscores the scale and importance of the company’s longstanding operations in Africa’s largest oil-producing nation.

Shell’s payments to Nigeria in 2024 marked a sharp increase from the $3.8 billion it remitted in 2023. The company attributed the jump primarily to production entitlements under joint ventures and production sharing contracts, which accounted for over $3.8 billion of the total disbursement. Taxes amounted to $648.7 million, while royalties contributed $770.2 million. Another $102 million came from fees and various statutory charges.

Out of the $5.34 billion total, a lion’s share—more than 71 percent—went to the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), which received $3.8 billion. Shell also paid $648.7 million to the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), $781.9 million to the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), $97.2 million to the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), and approximately $3.9 million to the National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure (NASENI). These payments were tied to Shell’s obligations under joint venture agreements, royalties, corporate income tax, and various statutory levies.

Detailed project-level disclosures included in Shell’s report reveal that the company’s East Asset, one of its key upstream hubs in the Niger Delta, attracted the highest production entitlement payments at over $1.3 billion. The East Asset spans several Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) and is pivotal in Shell’s production footprint in Nigeria. The company’s operations under Oil Mining Lease 133, which it jointly operates with TotalEnergies and the Nigerian government, brought in $136.6 million, primarily from tax obligations. Meanwhile, a group of deepwater and shallow water assets—OML 212, OML 118, OML 135, and Oil Prospecting Licence 219—together generated $1.4 billion in combined entitlements, taxes, royalties, and fees.

Globally, Shell disbursed $28.1 billion to various governments in 2024, down five percent from the previous year, reflecting weaker commodity prices and declining profits. While Nigeria ranked highest, Brazil followed with $4.5 billion in payments. Oman received $4.3 billion, Norway $3.38 billion, and Qatar $3.33 billion.

In contrast, several African countries where Shell maintains smaller operations received relatively modest sums. Egypt received $43 million. São Tomé and Príncipe, where Shell has exploration interests, received just $1.3 million. Tanzania and Tunisia received $140,000 and $29.3 million, respectively.

In an ironic twist, Shell received a refund of $32 million from the UK government due to decommissioning cost recoveries related to the Brent field and other aging North Sea infrastructure. That figure was lower than the $43 million refund the company received from the UK government in 2023.

However, the scale of Shell’s financial contribution to Nigeria, despite its divestment push, raises difficult questions about the sustainability of oil revenues as international majors reduce their exposure to the country’s challenging onshore environment. Shell has been present in Nigeria for over 80 years but has been selling off its onshore oil fields after years of security threats, community unrest, oil theft, environmental degradation, and litigation over oil spills. The company has framed the move as a strategic simplification of its global portfolio and part of a wider ambition to become a net-zero emissions company by 2050.

While Shell exits the high-risk Niger Delta terrain, it continues to hold deepwater assets, which it considers safer and more consistent with its long-term energy transition goals. Operations such as the Bonga field, which Shell operates through its Nigerian subsidiary, remain a core part of its production base and continue to generate significant government revenues.

However, the current level of contribution may not be sustainable. Shell’s departure from onshore production, combined with similar divestments by other International Oil Companies (IOCs), has sparked concerns over revenue shortfalls and accountability in the wake of asset transfers to local operators, many of whom may lack the financial or technical capacity to maintain production levels or regulatory compliance.

In March 2025, Nigeria’s House of Representatives summoned 48 oil companies, including Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company, to appear before its Committee on Public Accounts over a combined debt of N9.4 trillion. The probe stemmed from damning findings in the Auditor-General’s 2021 report on the consolidated federal financial statements. Among the summoned firms were other industry heavyweights such as Chevron Nigeria Ltd, TotalEnergies E&P Nigeria, Seplat Energy, Oando Oil Ltd, and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited.

In the same month, the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) announced it had commenced a comprehensive review of divestment transactions involving 26 oil blocks sold by five international oil majors, amounting to over $6.03 billion. The agency emphasized the need for transparency and strict adherence to due process in all such deals, given their long-term implications for revenue generation and environmental management.

Shell’s $2.4 billion divestment to Renaissance, a Nigerian-led consortium, is one of the major transactions under NEITI’s scrutiny. Others include ExxonMobil’s attempted $1.28 billion sale of its onshore and shallow water assets to Seplat, which is still awaiting regulatory clearance, and TotalEnergies’ $860 million divestment to Chappal.

NEITI has flagged concerns that these transfers, while intended to localize ownership and improve operational efficiency, risk being marred by opacity and non-compliance with Nigeria’s oil sector reforms under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA). The agency stressed that asset sales must not become backdoor exits for IOCs looking to abandon environmental and financial liabilities.

As Shell’s payments show, international oil companies remain central to Nigeria’s oil-dependent economy. But with their exits accelerating, Nigeria faces the daunting task of replacing not just the technical expertise and capital inflows, but also the billions in annual revenues that these companies currently contribute.

Whether indigenous firms can fill this gap, and whether the regulatory institutions tasked with overseeing this transition can do so transparently and effectively, remains one of the most critical questions facing Nigeria’s energy sector today.

Nigeria’s inflation rate dropped slightly to 23.71% in April 2025, a marginal improvement from the 24.23% recorded in March, according to fresh data released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) on Thursday.

This represents a modest 0.52 percentage point decline and marks another month of slowdown in the inflation rate, suggesting a possible easing of price pressures, albeit at a fragile pace.

On a year-on-year basis, the latest figure shows a sharp 9.99 percentage point decline from 33.69% in April 2024, a change attributed in part to a base-year revision in the inflation calculation methodology — now benchmarked to November 2009 = 100.

Food Inflation Plummets on Paper – But Not in Markets

Though the easing may be viewed as a positive development, it comes amid continued economic hardship, high energy costs, and stagnant incomes. Prices remain significantly elevated, and the reality in markets tells a different story. Despite the statistical decline, many Nigerians say they have not felt any relief in the cost of food, transport, and other essentials.

One of the standout figures in the NBS report is the sharp drop in food inflation, which fell to 21.26% year-on-year in April 2025, down from a staggering 40.53% in April 2024 — a 19.27 percentage point decline. But this sharp fall is not due to a substantial drop in food prices, but rather what the NBS described as a “base-year effect” due to changes in the inflation methodology.

On a month-to-month basis, food inflation was marginally lower, declining by 2.06% in April from 2.18% in March, indicating that prices are still rising but at a slightly slower pace.

The NBS attributed the moderation in food prices to declines in staple items such as maize flour, wheat grain, dried okro, yam flour, soya beans, rice, bambara beans, and brown beans — although there is growing skepticism among consumers, many of whom continue to report that food prices are either stable or still climbing in open markets.

Core and Rural Inflation Show Similar Trends

The report also showed that Core Inflation, which excludes the prices of volatile agricultural produce, fell to 23.39% year-on-year in April, down from 26.84% in the same month last year. On a monthly basis, core inflation declined to 1.34%, a sharp drop from 3.73% in March.

Urban inflation dropped to 24.29% year-on-year from 36.00%, while rural inflation slowed to 22.83% from 31.64%, further reflecting the base-effect-driven trend.

Despite these reductions, the average twelve-month urban inflation stood at 30.41%, slightly higher than 30.02% in April 2024. Rural inflation averaged 26.29%, a slight drop from 26.38% last year.

Economic analysts were not surprised by the April data. Damilare Asimiyu, Head of Research at Afrinvest West Africa, told NairaMetrics that the moderation was “expected due to a favorable base effect.”

“April 2024 marked a significant inflationary peak. On a year-on-year basis, this will create a downward bias even if prices continue to trend upward on a monthly basis,” he explained.

In other words, inflation is not necessarily easing due to improvements in supply or macroeconomic reforms, but simply because the rate of change is being measured against an unusually high figure from last year.

What’s Fueling Inflation in Nigeria?

Despite the month-on-month decline, key sectors are still driving inflation. The NBS identified the following categories as the biggest contributors to headline inflation on a year-on-year basis:

• Food & Non-Alcoholic Beverages – 9.49%
• Restaurants and Accommodation Services – 3.06%
• Transport – 2.53%
• Housing, Water, Electricity, Gas & Other Fuels – 2.00%

These categories continue to suffer from the ripple effects of Nigeria’s foreign exchange volatility, logistics bottlenecks, and broader macroeconomic instability.

Policy Outlook: All Eyes on the CBN

The new inflation figures come just ahead of the Central Bank of Nigeria’s (CBN) 300th Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, scheduled for next week. While the slight decline in inflation may seem encouraging, it is unlikely to be enough to prompt a change in the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR), which currently sits at 24.75%, its highest level in decades.

Many economists have argued that raising the MPR has done little to curb cost-push inflation, which is largely driven by structural problems like fuel costs, insecurity, and import dependence.

Recent months have seen calls from business leaders and trade unions urging the CBN to reconsider its hawkish monetary stance, especially as access to credit becomes more difficult and local businesses struggle with high input costs.

Disconnect Between Data and Reality

While the official statistics suggest a cooling in inflation, the story on the ground is starkly different. Nigerians are grappling with high transport fares, unaffordable rent, and food prices that remain stubbornly high. Many question whether the inflation methodology truly reflects economic reality.

This persistent disconnect between macroeconomic data and consumer experiences is expected to continue to test public trust in official figures and place added pressure on policymakers to deliver more than just statistical relief.

JPMorgan Chase has completed its first public blockchain transaction, settling tokenized U.S. Treasuries outside its private network. The transaction, facilitated by Ondo Finance and leveraging Chainlink’s interoperability technology, marks a significant step for the bank, which has traditionally relied on its private blockchain, Kinexys Digital Payments (formerly JPM Coin).

The settlement involved a cross-chain transfer of tokenized short-term Treasuries on Ondo’s public ledger, demonstrating JPMorgan’s move toward integrating with public blockchain infrastructure. This development is seen as a milestone in bridging traditional finance (TradFi) with decentralized finance (DeFi), with potential implications for tokenized real-world assets (RWAs).

JPMorgan’s first public blockchain transaction to settle tokenized U.S. Treasuries outside its private network has far-reaching implications for traditional finance (TradFi), decentralized finance (DeFi), and the broader financial ecosystem. This move signals a step toward integrating TradFi’s robust infrastructure with DeFi’s open, permissionless systems. By settling tokenized Treasuries on a public blockchain, JPMorgan demonstrates that large institutions can operate in public DeFi environments, potentially increasing trust and adoption.

It could accelerate the mainstream adoption of tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), such as bonds, funds, or real estate, by proving interoperability between private and public blockchains. Tokenized assets on public blockchains can be traded 24/7, unlike traditional markets with set hours. This enhances liquidity and makes assets like Treasuries more accessible to a broader range of investors, including retail and DeFi participants.

Cross-chain settlements, as enabled by Chainlink’s technology, allow assets to move seamlessly between different blockchain networks, reducing fragmentation and improving market efficiency. Public blockchains can lower transaction costs by eliminating intermediaries and streamlining settlement processes. For JPMorgan, this could mean faster, cheaper cross-border payments and asset transfers compared to legacy systems.

The use of smart contracts in public blockchains automates processes like clearing and settlement, reducing operational overhead. As a major financial institution, JPMorgan’s participation in public blockchain transactions sets a precedent for other banks and regulators. It may encourage clearer regulatory frameworks for tokenized assets and DeFi, addressing concerns around compliance, anti-money laundering (AML), and know-your-customer (KYC) requirements.

It validates public blockchains as viable infrastructure for institutional-grade transactions, potentially prompting competitors like Goldman Sachs or Citi to explore similar integrations. The transaction highlights the growing market for tokenized RWAs, with estimates suggesting the market could reach $10 trillion by 2030 (e.g., BCG and ADDX projections). Public blockchains’ scalability and interoperability could drive this growth, enabling fractional ownership and new investment opportunities.

JPMorgan’s shift from its private Kinexys Digital Payments network to public blockchains may spur innovation in hybrid blockchain models, where institutions leverage both private and public networks for different use cases. It could intensify competition between public blockchain protocols (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) and private networks, pushing advancements in scalability, security, and interoperability.

TradFi relies on centralized, permissioned systems like SWIFT or private blockchains (e.g., JPMorgan’s Kinexys). These offer control, regulatory compliance, and institutional trust but are often slower, costlier, and less accessible. DeFi operates on decentralized, permissionless public blockchains (e.g., Ethereum, Solana). These provide transparency, speed, and global access but face challenges like regulatory uncertainty, volatility, and security risks (e.g., smart contract exploits).

JPMorgan’s transaction uses public blockchains while maintaining TradFi’s compliance standards (e.g., via Chainlink’s interoperability and Ondo’s KYC/AML processes), showing a hybrid model where institutions can engage with DeFi without fully relinquishing control. TradFi operates under strict regulatory oversight (e.g., SEC, FINRA), ensuring investor protection but stifling innovation due to lengthy approval processes.

DeFi often operates in a regulatory gray zone, enabling rapid innovation but raising concerns about fraud, money laundering, and investor safety. Institutional participation, as seen with JPMorgan, could push regulators to clarify rules for tokenized assets and DeFi, fostering a more harmonized framework that balances innovation and compliance.

TradFi caters primarily to institutional and high-net-worth clients, with high barriers to entry (e.g., minimum investment sizes, accreditation requirements) while DeFi democratizes access, allowing retail investors to participate in markets (e.g., via fractionalized tokens) but requires technical knowledge and exposure to volatile crypto markets.

Tokenized Treasuries on public blockchains lower barriers to entry, enabling retail investors to access high-quality assets like U.S. Treasuries, while TradFi’s involvement ensures stability and trust. TradFi trusted due to established reputations, regulatory backing, and insured systems (e.g., FDIC). However, centralized systems are vulnerable to single points of failure.

DeFi trust is derived from code and decentralization, but risks like hacks (e.g., $2 billion in DeFi exploits in 2022) and lack of recourse deter institutional adoption. JPMorgan’s use of audited protocols like Chainlink and Ondo mitigates security risks, blending DeFi’s transparency with TradFi’s reliability.

JPMorgan’s public blockchain transaction is a pivotal moment in narrowing the TradFi-DeFi divide. It demonstrates that institutions can leverage public blockchains’ efficiency and accessibility while maintaining compliance and trust. The implications—greater liquidity, cost savings, and RWA growth—could reshape financial markets.

However, the divide persists due to differences in regulation, control, and risk profiles. Continued collaboration, like that between JPMorgan, Ondo, and Chainlink, will be crucial to building a hybrid financial system that combines the best of both worlds.

U.S. President Donald Trump has reignited tensions with Apple, rebuking the company for its growing production presence in India and demanding that it build its flagship products on American soil — a demand experts say may be unrealistic and could ultimately play into China’s hands.

Speaking Thursday at a policy roundtable in Washington, Trump said he recently confronted Apple CEO Tim Cook over the company’s global manufacturing strategy. The president, who has long championed an “America First” approach, expressed frustration that the Cupertino-based tech giant is moving parts of its production away from China only to settle in India, rather than bringing those operations home.

“I had a little problem with Tim Cook yesterday,” Trump told the audience. “I said to him, ‘my friend, I treated you very good. You’re coming here with $500 billion, but now I hear you’re building all over India.’ I don’t want you building in India.”

Trump was referring to Apple’s $500 billion U.S. investment pledge announced in February, which includes plans for a new facility in Texas to manufacture AI servers for its Apple Intelligence platform. But despite that commitment, the company has made no secret of its ambition to ramp up production in India — a country Apple sees as a critical pillar in its effort to diversify its supply chain.

Apple currently assembles about 90% of its iPhones in China, a reliance it has been trying to reduce due to a combination of geopolitical tension, rising Chinese labor costs, and Beijing’s increasing control over foreign companies operating within its borders. The push to India, where Apple plans to produce at least 25% of all iPhones by 2026, has been widely seen as a hedge against those risks.

Trump’s Pressure May Backfire

However, Trump’s rebuke may not just complicate Apple’s India strategy — it could inadvertently benefit China, analysts say.

Over the past year, Beijing has quietly worked to disrupt Apple’s India ambitions, including by tightening its grip on Chinese component suppliers, which are integral to the iPhone’s complex supply chain. China supplies a significant portion of Apple’s components and machinery, and most of its contract manufacturers, such as Foxconn and Pegatron, have deep operations in China, even as they begin to establish a presence in India.

By urging Apple to abandon India without offering a viable alternative, Trump could unwittingly force Apple back into deeper reliance on China, particularly now that Washington and Beijing appear to be entering a new phase of trade détente.

Earlier this month, top U.S. and Chinese officials resumed high-level trade talks, which had been frozen for years. Treasury Secretary Scott Besent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng met in Guangzhou to lay the groundwork for a possible trade framework that could relieve U.S. companies of some tariff burdens imposed during the Biden administration and now by Trump. The world’s two largest economies have agreed to lower tariffs for 90 days, marking the clearest sign yet of a thaw.

Amid this backdrop, some analysts believe Apple may delay or even scale back its India pivot, particularly if conditions in China stabilize and U.S. policy turns hostile to other offshoring destinations.

Why Apple Can’t Build iPhones in the U.S.

Apple’s reliance on Asia is not just a matter of policy — it’s embedded in the economics of global manufacturing. Assembling an iPhone requires hundreds of components sourced from dozens of countries, and a tightly choreographed logistics chain that allows assembly plants to churn out millions of units with precision and speed.

If Apple were to attempt to move iPhone production to the U.S., the price of an iPhone could rise to between $1,500 and $3,500, analysts estimate — a more than 50% increase from current retail prices.

Moreover, the U.S. lacks the infrastructure, labor pool, and supplier network that Asia offers. Chinese manufacturing hubs like Shenzhen have spent decades building what analysts call a “manufacturing brain trust,” an ecosystem of expertise that allows for rapid scaling — something America simply does not have today.

Apple currently makes only a small fraction of its products in the U.S., including the Mac Pro, which is assembled in Texas. Even then, some of its components are sourced from overseas.

The Headwinds in Apple’s India Strategy

Apple’s ambitions in India remain significant. Its main supplier, Foxconn, recently received approval from the Indian government to build a semiconductor fabrication facility in partnership with HCL Group. The move signals a long-term plan to localize even more of Apple’s production ecosystem, including chips, which are currently mostly made in Taiwan and China.

But Apple’s efforts in India haven’t been without problems. The country lacks the supply chain depth of China, and Indian factories have faced repeated scrutiny over labor violations, wage disputes, and infrastructure limitations. However, Apple has steadily expanded its India footprint, now producing iPhones locally for both domestic sales and exports — a strategic shift that earned praise from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration.

Trump’s attack now threatens to undermine that cooperation. Under the White House’s trade protectionist policies revealed in April, Trump has imposed a so-called “reciprocal tariff” of 26% on Indian goods, which has been temporarily lowered until July.

Trump’s stance now places Apple in a difficult place: continue expanding in India at the risk of further antagonizing Washington, or retrench to China just as a fragile U.S.-China thaw emerges.

If Trump’s stance hardens and trade talks with China improve, Apple may be compelled to lean once again on the very country it has spent years trying to distance itself from, giving Beijing the upper hand in what was once seen as Apple’s strategic decoupling.