Nigeria’s solid minerals sector is undergoing a sharp course correction. In September 2025, the Ministry of Solid Minerals Development revoked 1,263 mineral licenses from operators who had failed to meet mandatory obligations. Officials say the move is more than a bureaucratic purge: it is a deliberate attempt to restore credibility to a sector long undermined by speculation, idleness, and opaque practices. Whether the policy shift can translate into sustainable industrial development now depends on how quickly, and how responsibly, those newly available titles are reallocated.
The cancelled licenses cut across the spectrum of the industry: 584 exploration licenses, 65 mining leases, 144 quarry licenses, and 470 small-scale mining permits. They will be deleted from Nigeria’s electronic mining cadastral system, effectively returning the mineral-bearing lands to the public register for reallocation. Defaulting companies are not being let off the hook; the ministry has instructed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to pursue outstanding fees, a measure intended to underscore that regulatory obligations cannot be evaded by walking away.
This is not Nigeria’s first clean-up exercise. In April 2024, the government revoked another 924 dormant titles. That earlier decision was justified as a way to combat what regulators described as “license racketeering,” a practice in which individuals or shell companies acquire titles only to sell them on an informal secondary market. Such speculation distorted the allocation system, discouraged serious investors, and left promising deposits idle. With this new round of cancellations, the total number of titles withdrawn under the current administration now exceeds 3,700, signaling that the government intends to enforce the “use it or lose it” principle with consistency.
At the center of this reform effort is Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Dele Alake. He has been blunt in his assessment of the industry’s problems, warning that licenses are not meant to sit in drawers waiting for the highest bidder. For him, the annual service fee is more than a technical requirement; it is the bare minimum evidence that a company is willing to develop a site. Without such discipline, the government argues, Nigeria cannot unlock the sector’s potential or attract credible partners.
Read also: South Africa’s mining liberalisation opens new frontier for Indian capital and skills
The economic stakes are high. Nigeria is known internationally as Africa’s largest oil producer, but beneath its soil lies a diverse array of solid minerals: lithium, gold, manganese, limestone, iron ore, and a range of critical metals increasingly in demand for global clean energy transitions. By clearing inactive titles, the government hopes to free up access to these deposits and position the country as a competitive supplier in a world hungry for critical minerals to feed renewable energy technologies, batteries, and electric vehicles.
However, the measure alone cannot guarantee success. Investors consistently highlight four systemic challenges that complicate mining in Nigeria: infrastructure gaps, particularly in power and transport; persistent security risks in some mineral belts; uneven regulatory enforcement; and shortages in local technical capacity. Revoking licenses might make geological acreage available, but without resolving these barriers, the projects that replace the cancelled titles risk facing the same stagnation.
Read also: KEY 2026 puts Africa at the heart of global clean energy conversations
The government is trying to respond on multiple fronts. Policy documents issued over the past two years emphasize beneficiation, the processing and value-addition of minerals inside Nigeria, rather than raw export. Licenses are expected to carry stronger local content clauses, requiring companies to establish refining plants, beneficiation hubs, or downstream manufacturing. Fiscal incentives, such as tax waivers and full repatriation of profits, are also being deployed to woo long-term investors. If enforced transparently, these provisions could transform Nigeria from a supplier of raw ore into a player in global green value chains.
Yet the sustainability of this strategy hinges on rigorous governance. The Minerals and Mining Act of 2007 already requires environmental impact assessments, rehabilitation plans, and community engagement before licenses can be activated. The challenge has never been the absence of rules, but rather the unevenness of compliance and monitoring. Recent court decisions in Nigeria have shown a growing willingness to hold both government and companies accountable when projects sidestep consultation or damage ecosystems. For local communities, therefore, the question is whether the revocation and reallocation of licenses will create space for more socially responsible operators, or whether new entrants will repeat the extractive patterns of the past.
For artisanal and small-scale miners, the reform cuts both ways. On the one hand, formal operators taking over dormant sites could reduce informal mining and the attendant risks of unsafe practices and environmental damage. On the other, rapid reallocation without structured pathways for small miners to formalize could displace livelihoods and drive activity further underground. Designing transitional frameworks, such as cooperatives, simplified licensing schemes, or technical assistance, could ensure that artisanal miners are not excluded from the new landscape.
Internationally, the license revocation has been interpreted as a signal that Nigeria is serious about governance. With demand for critical minerals climbing, global investors are increasingly sensitive to jurisdictional risk. Countries that can demonstrate regulatory discipline, transparent licensing, and a commitment to environmental and social safeguards are likely to attract more patient and higher-quality capital. Nigeria’s recent actions may help reposition it in that competitive landscape, provided the reallocation of licenses is managed openly and with sustainability clauses built into contracts.
Ultimately, the cancellation of 1,263 licenses is a starting point, not an end. It clears the register of speculative claims, but the true measure of success will be the quality of projects that replace them. If Nigeria can reissue licenses under terms that prioritize beneficiation, enforce environmental and social obligations, and strengthen community participation, the reform could become a milestone in the country’s shift toward sustainable industrialization. If, however, new titles fall into the same patterns of dormancy and speculation, the cycle will simply repeat itself.
The Nigerian government has sent a clear message: mineral resources are a national asset, not a bargaining chip for speculative players. Now, the test lies in whether new investors, and the state itself, can prove that this latest round of reforms is not just administrative housekeeping but the foundation of a more transparent, accountable, and development-driven mining sector.
