Nigeria’s cement prices outpace Kenya, Tanzania, Togo — FCCPC

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has raised concerns over the high cost of cement in Nigeria, saying preliminary findings from a three-month investigation suggest that possible anti-competitive practices may be contributing to the rising prices.

The commission said its investigation was launched in response to widespread complaints over the cost of cement and compared Nigeria’s market with those of Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Togo.

In a statement issued on Tuesday by its Director of Corporate Affairs, Ondaje Ijagwu, the FCCPC said preliminary findings showed that cement was being sold at significantly higher prices in Nigeria than in some other African markets.

The commission said Nigeria has an estimated installed cement production capacity of between 60 million and 65 million metric tonnes annually, while domestic consumption is estimated at between 25 million and 30 million tonnes.

Despite the reported excess capacity and Nigeria’s position as a net exporter to neighbouring countries, the FCCPC said domestic cement prices had continued to rise.

According to the commission, a 50kg bag of cement sold for between N9,300 and N9,700 in January but increased to between N10,500 and N13,000 by mid-year. By July, prices of between N13,000 and N15,000 were recorded in some parts of the country.

The commission said the price disparity was particularly concerning when compared with other African markets.

In Kenya, where cement demand was estimated at 9.3 million tonnes in 2025, a 50kg bag reportedly sold for about $5.40, equivalent to N7,344. In Tanzania, the same quantity sold for about $4.80, or N6,528, while in Togo, where the commission said there were no limestone deposits, it sold for about $6.75, equivalent to N9,180.

The FCCPC said the findings raised questions about why Nigeria’s large production capacity and abundant limestone deposits had not translated into lower domestic prices.

“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 commission said.

However, cement manufacturers and other industry stakeholders have attributed the high prices to several factors, including energy costs, naira depreciation, imported machinery and spare parts, transportation and logistics.

The FCCPC said it was testing these explanations against verified data on production costs, capacity utilisation, pricing and other market conditions.

“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,” it said.

The ongoing investigation will examine possible price coordination, abuse of market power, restrictions on domestic supply and anti-competitive distribution practices.

The commission has consequently issued Notices of Commencement of Investigation and Summons to Produce to key industry players, requesting documents relating to pricing methods, production, capacity utilisation, exports and commercial relationships.

FCCPC Executive Vice Chairman, Tunji Bello, said the investigation was necessary because cement has a significant impact on housing, infrastructure and the wider economy.

“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,” Bello said.

He stressed that the investigation was not intended to control legitimate business decisions or prevent companies from making profits.

According to him, the objective is to ensure that prices and market outcomes are determined by genuine competition rather than unlawful practices.

The investigation comes amid growing concerns in the construction sector over the impact of cement prices on housing and infrastructure development.

The Chairman of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry Construction Group, Soji Adeniji, said his recent experience with a construction project supported concerns about the competitiveness of Nigerian cement prices.

Adeniji said a friend in Canada who considered importing cement from Nigeria eventually found that sourcing from Turkey and some other markets was more economical.

He said the high prices could be linked to several factors along the cement production and distribution chain, including logistics, taxation and other operating costs.

Adeniji also questioned claims that rainfall was responsible for recent supply shortages, noting that there had been relatively little rainfall since the beginning of August.

Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Uyo, Akpan Ekpo, suggested that the government should examine whether supply was keeping pace with demand and provide support for greater investment in the sector.

He also called for easier access to finance for businesses seeking to participate in cement production and distribution.

Meanwhile, a researcher at Yaba College of Technology and member of the Nigerian Institute of Building, Samuel Shonibare, urged greater investment in alternatives to conventional cement.

Shonibare said research into materials such as rice husk ash could help reduce dependence on cement in concrete production and potentially lower construction costs.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise, Muda Yusuf, however, urged the FCCPC to make its investigation more comprehensive by examining the cost structures of cement producers in the countries used for comparison.

He said factors such as production costs, taxes, energy and logistics in those countries needed to be established before firm conclusions could be reached on the causes of Nigeria’s higher cement prices.

The FCCPC said its investigation would determine whether prevailing prices were justified by legitimate market costs or whether anti-competitive practices were contributing to the disparity.