A growing coalition of labour federations, lawyers, and environmentalists in Nigeria is objecting to a secretive deal with the US, signed on September 23 at Nigeria House in New York. The Critical Minerals Framework Agreement was signed by Solid Minerals Minister Dele Alake and US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, but its terms have not been made public. Critics argue that the deal could reproduce the extraction patterns that have left Niger Delta communities grappling with environmental damage.
The deal has sparked opposition due to concerns over transparency and accountability. Lawyers for Civil Liberties has filed a Freedom of Information application demanding the full, unredacted text of the agreement, citing the public interest and constitutional access-to-information rights. The Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) has also asked for the details to be published so that communities and civil society can scrutinise the protections that would apply to people affected by mining projects.
The opposition has been fueled by a viral claim that Nigeria has "handed over" $700 billion in minerals to the US. However, ITUC-Africa has warned against reading the $700 billion figure as a US investment commitment, saying it is an estimate of Nigeria's mineral resources. Both governments describe the agreement as handing over no mines, licences or mineral rights. Despite this, critics argue that the public needs to see the terms of the deal to judge its merits.
Labour unions have joined the opposition, with ITUC-Africa's General Secretary, Joel Odigie, asking how much prior scrutiny the National Assembly gave the framework. Odigie called for publication of the full text and enforceable safeguards on beneficiation, local content, technology transfer, decent work, and taxation. He also warned against Nigeria swapping dependence on crude oil exports for dependence on exports of unprocessed lithium and rare earths.
The mistrust over the deal rests on an uncomfortable record. Despite its estimated $700 billion in reserves, the sector averaged only about 0.15 per cent of GDP between 2018 and 2022, according to PwC. Citizens who have watched wealth in the ground fail to become wealth in the pocket are asking why this agreement should be different. The timing of the deal has not helped, coming six days after 37 suspected illegal miners died in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps in Minna, Niger State.
While some supporters argue that the deal will bring fortune and shared prosperity to Nigerians, others urge caution. Dr Abdullahi Jabi, a regional chairman of the Campaign for Democracy, said the deal would bring benefits, but World Energy Council Nigeria's Bala Wunti cautioned that a deal with a superpower will affect unborn generations. Notably, both supporters and critics agree that the terms of the deal matter, and the public needs to see them.
The opposition to the deal has sparked a wider geopolitical debate. Some commentators place the deal inside a broader pattern of US-Nigeria relations, including Nigeria's designation as a Country of Particular Concern on October 31, 2025. The US then carried out airstrikes in Sokoto State on December 25, 2025, which raised concerns about accountability and civilian casualties. The outcome of the opposition to the deal will depend on whether Abuja answers the FOI request, whether the National Assembly asks questions, and whether the text contains the beneficiation and local-content guarantees the government claims it contains.
Key points
- The Nigerian government has not made the terms of the Critical Minerals Framework Agreement public, sparking concerns over transparency and accountability.
- Critics argue that the deal could reproduce the extraction patterns that have left Niger Delta communities grappling with environmental damage.
- The opposition to the deal has sparked a wider geopolitical debate about US-Nigeria relations and the impact on Nigeria's mineral resources.
