Nearly five decades after Nigeria began pursuing its ambition to become a major steel-producing nation, the country remains heavily dependent on imported steel products, while the Ajaokuta Steel Company Limited in Kogi State, conceived as the centrepiece of its industrial transformation, remains without sustained commercial steel production.
The situation presents a difficult question for the administration of President Bola Tinubu: how much progress has Nigeria made in converting its vast mineral resources and industrial assets into productive economic capacity?
For the Minister of Steel Development, Prince Shuaibu Abubakar Audu, the answer rests on a combination of investment commitments, policy reforms, efforts to revive dormant industrial facilities and a renewed push to attract foreign partners. Yet, against these initiatives stands a stubborn reality: the country’s flagship steel plant has not resumed commercial production, and the economic benefits promised by successive governments remain largely unrealised.
The contrast becomes more striking when the performance of the steel sector is examined alongside developments in solid minerals under the supervision of Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Dele Alake.
While the steel ministry is working to establish the conditions for industrial production, the solid minerals sector has reported significant increases in government revenue, alongside efforts to strengthen enforcement and formalise mining activities.
The comparison raises questions about the pace of implementation, the effectiveness of government spending, the credibility of investment announcements and the extent to which ministerial initiatives are translating into measurable outcomes for Nigerians.
For Audu, the central challenge is no longer simply to demonstrate that investors are interested in Nigeria’s steel industry. It is to show that these investments can deliver operational factories, commercially viable production, employment and a substantial reduction in the country’s dependence on imported steel.
Ajaokuta: The Unfinished Promise of Nigerian Industrialisation
Ajaokuta Steel Company Limited occupies a prominent place in Nigeria’s industrial history. Conceived in the late 1970s, the project was intended to provide the foundation for a domestic steel industry capable of supplying the construction, manufacturing, transportation, energy and defence sectors.
Its strategic importance extended beyond steel production. A functioning integrated steel complex was expected to stimulate mining, engineering, fabrication, rail transportation, power generation and other industrial activities.
For Kogi State, where the complex is located, the plant was also expected to generate employment, expand commercial activity and transform surrounding communities into industrial centres.
However, the project has remained largely dormant despite decades of public expenditure, repeated rehabilitation proposals and successive attempts to secure foreign technical and financial partners.
The failure to bring Ajaokuta into sustained commercial production has become one of the most persistent examples of Nigeria’s difficulty in completing major public industrial projects.
Estimates of the total resources committed to the complex vary, with some accounts placing cumulative expenditure and associated commitments in the billions of dollars. Whatever the precise figure, the central question remains unchanged: why has an industrial asset of such strategic importance failed to deliver its intended economic benefits?
The consequences extend beyond the plant itself.
Nigeria’s construction companies, manufacturers and other industrial users continue to rely substantially on imported steel and related products. This exposes businesses to foreign-exchange pressures, international price fluctuations, shipping costs and disruptions in global supply chains.
A functioning domestic steel industry could help reduce some of these vulnerabilities, although its actual impact would depend on production costs, product quality, energy supply, access to raw materials and the competitiveness of locally manufactured products.
For a country seeking to expand infrastructure, manufacturing and employment, the continued inability to operationalise Ajaokuta represents both an industrial setback and a test of government accountability.
Audu inherited a sector burdened by decades of failed efforts. Nevertheless, the responsibility for demonstrating measurable progress rests with the present administration and the ministry charged with developing the industry.
Audu’s Revival Strategy: From Technical Audits to Foreign Partnerships
One of the minister’s principal initiatives has been to reopen discussions on the technical and operational rehabilitation of Ajaokuta.
In September 2024, the ministry announced an agreement involving the original builders of the plant, followed by engagements with TPE and a Russian consortium in Moscow concerning a technical assessment and revival strategy.
The proposed assessment was intended to establish the condition of the complex, identify the equipment and infrastructure requiring rehabilitation, and provide a basis for determining the cost and technical requirements of restoring production.
Such an assessment is essential. A plant that has remained largely inactive for decades cannot simply be switched on without determining the condition of its machinery, utilities, production lines and supporting infrastructure.
The assessment should also establish which components can be rehabilitated, which require replacement and whether the original configuration remains commercially and technologically viable.
However, the technical audit itself is not the ultimate measure of success. Its value depends on whether it produces a credible implementation plan, a transparent financing structure, clear contractual obligations and a realistic timetable for commercial production.
The ministry has also explored alternative financing arrangements involving Chinese partners, reportedly because complications arising from the Russia-Ukraine war affected the original approach.
The proposed Chinese partnership is expected to support a comprehensive rehabilitation programme, with restoration costs estimated in some accounts at between $1.5 billion and $2 billion.
These figures underline the scale of the undertaking and the importance of ensuring that any agreement protects Nigeria’s financial interests.
Before committing substantial public resources or granting significant concessions, the government must establish the scope of work, the funding arrangements, the responsibilities of each party and the consequences of failing to meet agreed milestones.
Nigeria’s history of abandoned industrial projects makes these safeguards particularly important.
An agreement with an international company may signal renewed interest in Ajaokuta, but it does not establish that financing has been secured, rehabilitation has begun or commercial production is imminent.
The distinction between an announced partnership and a functioning industrial plant must remain central to any assessment of the minister’s performance.
Investment Announcements and the Test of Delivery
Beyond Ajaokuta, Audu’s ministry has sought to attract private investment into steel manufacturing, galvanising, iron ore processing and energy infrastructure.
Among the projects highlighted by the ministry is a proposed $400 million steel plant by Stellar Steel, associated with India’s Inner Galaxy Group, in Ogun State. The project was expected to reach completion in April 2026, according to the information provided by the ministry’s supporters.
As that deadline has passed, the next question is whether the plant was completed, commissioned and placed into commercial operation. A construction deadline is not evidence of completion, just as an official groundbreaking ceremony does not establish productive capacity.
The ministry’s performance should therefore be assessed against verifiable milestones, including the status of construction, the installation of equipment, the commencement of production, the number of workers employed and the volume of steel produced.
Another project cited in the sector’s investment drive is Orbit Fabrication and Galvanising Works Limited, which was commissioned in Lagos on April 22, 2025.
The facility is associated with the production of galvanised steel products, including telecommunications towers, which are important to the expansion and maintenance of communications infrastructure.
Its commissioning represents a potentially useful contribution to domestic manufacturing because local production can reduce reliance on imported components and strengthen industrial supply chains.
However, the ministry and the company would need to provide updated figures on production capacity, actual output, local sourcing, employment and export performance to establish the facility’s contribution to the broader steel sector.
There is also the proposed $500 million investment involving the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and its partners for five mini-liquefied natural gas plants within the Ajaokuta Steel territory.
The proposed facilities are intended to support energy supply and potentially reduce the cost of operating industrial facilities in the area.
Reliable and affordable energy is fundamental to steel production, which requires substantial and consistent power supplies. If successfully implemented, the LNG projects could help address one of the structural problems confronting Nigeria’s heavy industries.
Nevertheless, their value to Ajaokuta will depend on the financing arrangements, construction progress, gas supply agreements and the extent to which the infrastructure is integrated into a functioning steel production system.
These projects illustrate the breadth of the ministry’s approach. But they also expose the need for a public reporting system that distinguishes between investment proposals, signed agreements, financial commitments, projects under construction and operational facilities.
Without that distinction, the volume of announced investments may create an impression of industrial transformation that is not necessarily supported by production data.
Read also:
- BREAKING: After 46 Years, Ajaokuta Steel Takes Its Biggest Step Toward Revival
- Hope for Koko Port: How renewed investment will transform Delta’s economic landscape
- Nigeria, US Sign Mining Framework to Unlock $700bn Mineral Resources
The $1 Billion India Agreement: Opportunity or Another Unfulfilled Promise?
In April 2026, Audu reportedly signed a $1 billion memorandum of understanding with India’s Rashmi Metaliks Group to support the development of Nigeria’s steel sector over three years.
The agreement was presented as part of efforts to attract international expertise, expand industrial capacity and strengthen Nigeria’s position in the regional steel market.
India has considerable experience in steel manufacturing and associated industrial activities, making cooperation with an established company potentially beneficial to Nigeria.
The proposed investment could create opportunities for technology transfer, local employment, skills development and the development of downstream industries, depending on the terms of the agreement and the projects eventually undertaken.
But a memorandum of understanding is not necessarily equivalent to a binding investment contract or the disbursement of funds.
The public needs information on the specific facilities covered by the agreement, the location of the proposed investments, the financing structure, the expected production capacity and the conditions attached to the partnership.
It is also important to establish whether the agreement is supported by firm investment commitments, financial guarantees and enforceable delivery schedules.
These details matter because Nigeria has repeatedly entered into arrangements intended to revive strategic industrial assets without achieving the expected results.
A $1 billion headline figure may attract attention, but the amount that matters most is the capital actually deployed to build or rehabilitate facilities capable of producing commercially competitive steel.
The government should also disclose whether the proposed investments depend on public guarantees, tax incentives, subsidised infrastructure or other concessions that could expose taxpayers to financial risks.
Such disclosures would not undermine the investment drive. Rather, they would help establish whether the agreements represent commercially sound partnerships that advance Nigeria’s industrial interests.
Delta Steel and the Challenge of Reviving Dormant Assets
The ministry’s efforts extend to the former Delta Steel Company, now associated with Premium Steel and Mines Limited.
The revival of the facility could provide another opportunity to expand domestic steel production and reduce the concentration of industrial activity around a single complex.
Reports cited in the sector’s revival plans indicate that the company has committed to a substantial investment programme involving raw-material exploration and plant rehabilitation, with an ambition to produce up to one million metric tonnes of liquid steel annually.
The reported investment commitment has been put at more than $1.3 billion, while the proposed timeline for reaching full production has been estimated at 18 to 24 months.
These targets would represent a significant development if the necessary financing, equipment rehabilitation, raw-material supply and energy infrastructure are secured.
However, the government must demonstrate that the commitments are progressing beyond announcements.
The relevant indicators include the amount of capital invested, the status of rehabilitation, the availability of iron ore and other inputs, the reliability of electricity and gas supplies, and the date on which commercial production is expected to begin.
A successful revival of Delta Steel could also help establish a more diversified industrial base, create employment in the Niger Delta and support businesses involved in fabrication, transportation and engineering.
Yet, as with Ajaokuta, the determining factor is whether the plant can operate sustainably rather than merely return to production temporarily.
Nigeria needs steel facilities that can compete on cost and quality, secure consistent access to raw materials and generate enough revenue to maintain equipment and expand operations.
The government’s responsibility is to create a regulatory and infrastructure environment that supports these objectives while ensuring that public assistance produces measurable benefits.
Policy Reforms, Jobs and the Metallurgical Industry Bill
Audu’s ministry has also pursued institutional and legislative reforms intended to strengthen the steel industry.
One of the initiatives is the proposed Metallurgical Industry Bill, which has reportedly passed its second reading in the House of Representatives.
The legislation is intended to provide a stronger framework for regulating and developing metallurgical activities, although its final provisions and implementation arrangements will determine its practical impact.
Effective legislation could clarify institutional responsibilities, strengthen standards and oversight, encourage investment and establish a more coherent framework for developing the industry.
But passing a bill through one stage of the legislative process is not the same as enacting and implementing a law.
The government must ensure that the proposed framework addresses the actual barriers confronting steel producers, including access to financing, infrastructure deficits, regulatory uncertainty, inadequate technical capacity and the availability of industrial inputs.
The ministry has also convened a National Steel Summit to bring together government officials, investors, technical experts and other stakeholders.
The summit established ambitious targets, including annual steel production of 10 million metric tonnes and the creation of approximately 500,000 jobs across the sector.
These objectives reflect the scale of the economic opportunity associated with a functioning steel industry. However, they should be treated as targets rather than achievements.
To make them meaningful, the ministry needs to publish a baseline assessment of current domestic production, installed capacity, actual utilisation rates and the investment required to achieve the proposed output.
It should also provide annual milestones against which progress can be independently evaluated.
The same applies to the employment target. Job creation projections should distinguish between temporary construction employment, permanent factory jobs and indirect employment generated across supply chains.
The ministry has also reported the recruitment of more than 200 steel-sector professionals into the National Steel Council and the training of over 700 young Nigerians in technical skills, including welding and fabrication.
These initiatives could help address the shortage of skilled workers required to support industrial expansion.
However, the long-term impact will depend on whether trained workers obtain relevant employment, whether recruited professionals are deployed effectively and whether institutions have the resources to fulfil their responsibilities.
Training numbers alone cannot establish the success of a skills programme. Employment outcomes, certification, workplace placement and earnings provide stronger measures of its value.
The Defence Industry and Ajaokuta’s Alternative Uses
Another initiative involves cooperation between the Ministry of Steel Development and the Ministry of Defence, including the Defence Industries Corporation of Nigeria, to explore the local production of military equipment.
The proposed arrangement envisages the manufacture of items such as protective vests, helmets, ammunition and other defence-related products at or through facilities associated with Ajaokuta.
The proposal offers a possible way to develop domestic manufacturing capacity while supporting Nigeria’s security requirements.
Local production of selected defence equipment could reduce import dependence, support technology transfer and create specialised jobs.
However, the technical and commercial feasibility of using Ajaokuta for these purposes must be demonstrated.
Manufacturing military hardware requires specialised equipment, appropriate materials, quality-control systems, secure supply chains and strict compliance with applicable laws and standards.
A defence-related agreement cannot, by itself, resolve the broader challenges associated with reviving an integrated steel plant.
The government must clarify whether the initiative is intended to complement full steel production or serve as a separate industrial activity that can begin before the complex is completely restored.
This distinction is important because Nigeria needs a coherent plan for Ajaokuta that identifies the most commercially viable uses of its infrastructure and establishes clear priorities for public investment.
What Is the Ministry Delivering to Nigerians?
The steel industry’s potential benefits extend far beyond the number of agreements signed by the ministry.
A functioning domestic industry could support construction, housing, road and rail infrastructure, manufacturing, renewable energy installations, telecommunications and other sectors that rely on steel products.
It could also create employment opportunities for engineers, technicians, welders, miners, transport operators and other workers.
But these benefits will remain largely theoretical until investment translates into reliable production and commercially viable businesses.
The ministry’s supporters have also highlighted interventions associated with Audu in Kogi State, including the reported distribution of grants to 10,000 beneficiaries, the purchase of 1,000 Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board examination forms for indigent students, and the distribution of food and agricultural inputs.
Other reported initiatives include the installation of solar-powered streetlights in parts of Kogi East and efforts to facilitate federal appointments for young people.
These interventions may provide immediate assistance to beneficiaries. They should, however, be assessed separately from the minister’s statutory responsibilities for developing Nigeria’s steel industry.
A minister’s political support base, constituency projects and personal interventions do not substitute for the performance indicators of the ministry he leads.
For the steel sector, the more relevant questions concern the operational status of Ajaokuta, the progress of Delta Steel, the actual implementation of private investment agreements, domestic production volumes and the number of sustainable jobs created.
The ministry should publish these figures regularly and provide documentary evidence where appropriate.
Such reporting would allow Nigerians to distinguish between projects that have been completed, those that are progressing and those that remain at the proposal stage.
Alake’s Solid Minerals Sector: A Different Measure of Progress
The performance of the steel ministry also invites comparison with the Ministry of Solid Minerals Development under Dele Alake.
Figures cited in assessments of the sector indicate that government revenue from solid minerals increased from approximately ₦16 billion in 2023 to more than ₦70 billion in 2025.
That represents a substantial increase in reported revenue and suggests that changes in enforcement, licensing and the administration of mining activities may be contributing to improved government receipts.
The sector has pursued measures including the deployment of mining marshals, action against illegal mining and efforts to strengthen cooperation between federal and state authorities.
Nevertheless, revenue growth should not be interpreted as a complete measure of the sector’s performance. A rigorous assessment would also examine mineral production, exports, formal employment, environmental compliance, community benefits and the proportion of mining activity operating legally.
The comparison with steel is useful because it highlights the different stages of development confronting the two ministries.
Solid minerals revenue can increase through improved licensing, compliance and collection systems without requiring every mining project to undergo a lengthy industrial construction process.
Steel production, by contrast, depends on large-scale capital investment, complex machinery, reliable energy, transportation infrastructure and a dependable supply of raw materials.
The two sectors therefore face different operational challenges.
Yet the comparison also demonstrates a common principle: policy reforms must be evaluated through measurable outcomes rather than announcements alone.
For the solid minerals ministry, the test includes whether revenue growth is sustainable and accompanied by responsible mining. For the steel ministry, it includes whether the country can turn investment commitments into operational factories and competitive domestic production.
The ministries should be judged against the specific responsibilities and constraints of their respective sectors, rather than through a simplistic comparison of headline figures.
The 2026 Test: From Promises to Production
The decisive question for Audu is whether the remaining period of the administration can deliver tangible progress at Ajaokuta and other major steel facilities.
The ministry has presented 2026 as a period for moving from policy development towards measurable production outcomes.
Achieving that transition will require more than diplomatic engagements and investment announcements.
First, the government must provide a credible and independently verifiable account of Ajaokuta’s technical condition, the scope of rehabilitation required and the financing arrangements necessary to complete the work.
Second, it must establish transparent implementation schedules for the proposed Chinese partnership and other investment agreements, including clear milestones and accountability provisions.
Third, the ministry should publish regular updates on the Stellar Steel project, Orbit’s operating performance, the mini-LNG plants and the rehabilitation of Delta Steel.
Fourth, it must demonstrate that its skills-development initiatives are translating into jobs and that the legislative reforms being pursued are improving the business environment.
Finally, the government should explain how public expenditure on the steel sector will be linked to measurable deliverables, particularly where facilities require continued funding despite generating little or no operating revenue.
These steps would give investors, industry stakeholders and the public a clearer basis for evaluating progress.
They would also help reduce the risk that the steel sector becomes another case of repeated promises without corresponding industrial transformation.
The Verdict: Momentum Without Transformation
Prince Shuaibu Abubakar Audu’s tenure has brought renewed attention to Nigeria’s steel industry, alongside efforts to attract foreign investment, pursue institutional reforms and explore alternative uses for dormant industrial infrastructure.
The proposed investments involving Indian and other international partners, the technical assessment of Ajaokuta, the Delta Steel revival plan and the Metallurgical Industry Bill all represent potentially important components of a wider industrial strategy.
But their ultimate value depends on implementation.
The steel ministry cannot be judged solely by the number of memoranda signed, summits organised or investment figures announced. It must demonstrate that these initiatives are producing factories, steel, jobs and sustainable economic activity.
The continued dormancy of Ajaokuta remains the most visible measure of the distance between Nigeria’s industrial ambitions and its actual achievements.
Nearly five decades after the project was conceived, the country still needs a clear, credible and financially sustainable route to commercial production.
Until that happens, the steel industry will continue to depend on promises of revival while Nigerian businesses purchase substantial quantities of steel from abroad.
Audu may yet leave a meaningful legacy if the investments and reforms associated with his ministry produce verifiable results. But the burden of proof rests on delivery, not declarations.
For President Tinubu’s administration, the challenge is equally significant. If Nigeria intends to build a stronger manufacturing base, expand employment and reduce its exposure to imported industrial products, the revival of the steel sector must become a practical economic programme rather than a recurring political pledge.
The ultimate test is straightforward: can the government convert decades of expenditure, years of negotiations and billions of dollars in proposed investment into sustainable domestic steel production?
Until Nigerian steel plants operate at commercially meaningful levels, the promise of industrial transformation will remain unfinished.
For more business and economy analysis, follow us on X.
