On September 15, 2026, traders at the Lagos Trade Fair Complex staged a protest, alleging that Chinese merchants were selling goods at retail prices—a practice they said threatens the survival of local businesses. The demonstration raised urgent questions about the legal and regulatory framework governing foreign participation in Nigeria’s retail market, and about what the law says concerning fair competition and the protection of local businesses from foreign merchants.
Videos of the protest circulated on social media, showing demonstrators marching through the market with placards. The protesters accused foreign merchants of importing manufactured goods, occupying stalls, and selling directly to consumers at wholesale or below-market prices. The Lagos State Police Command intervened during the protest, while the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex Management Board moved to address the dispute, urging traders to avoid taking the law into their own hands. The protest drew mixed reactions online, with one X user arguing that the Nigerian government favours foreign traders over its own citizens.
The Historical Position: The Indigenisation Decree
Nigeria’s earliest post-independence framework on foreign participation in commerce was the 1972 Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Decree, also known as the Indigenisation Decree. That law explicitly identified retail trade as a sector to be taken over from foreign traders, effectively reserving retail trade for Nigerian citizens.
What the NIPC Act Says
The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) Act, 1995, however, abrogated that position. The Act does not specifically prohibit foreign nationals or foreign-owned businesses from engaging in retail trade. Section 17 allows non-Nigerians to invest in and participate in the operation of any enterprise in the country, subject only to the restrictions set out in Section 18—the “negative list.”
Section 31 of the Act defines the negative list as sectors of investment prohibited to both foreign and Nigerian investors. These are the production of and dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; the production of military and paramilitary wear and accoutrements, including those of the Police and the Customs, Immigration and Prison Services; and such other items as the Federal Executive Council may, from time to time, determine.
In effect, the Act permits foreigners to own up to 100 per cent equity in any business in Nigeria, provided they comply with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. Section 19(2) makes clear that foreign participation does not exempt an enterprise from obtaining the licences, permits and other approvals required to establish or operate a business.
Competition Law and Retail Trade
Similarly, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018 regulates anti-competitive behaviour and the abuse of market dominance, but it does not reserve retail trade exclusively for Nigerian citizens. Under Sections 70 and 72, the Act prohibits the abuse of a dominant position in a market. However, selling goods at lower prices does not, by itself, establish a violation of the law.
Immigration Rules and the Spirit of the Law
Eze Onyekpere, a lawyer and director of the Nigerian Centre for Social Justice, argued that the NIPC Act should not be considered in isolation from immigration and expatriate employment regulations. He explained that although foreign investment is permitted, foreign nationals who intend to work in Nigeria must also obtain the appropriate authorisation. In his view, expatriate quotas and work permits are intended for foreigners bringing specialised skills that are not readily available in the country, rather than for those seeking to compete with Nigerians in businesses where local expertise is already abundant.
“Even if you want to set up a retail shop, the general spirit of the law does not encourage foreigners to do so. Running a retail shop is work, and you need an expatriate quota or permit to work in Nigeria,” Onyekpere said.
He argued that the Ministry of Interior and other relevant authorities should examine the permits issued to foreign nationals to determine whether their activities correspond with the purpose for which they were authorised to work. For instance, a foreign national who obtained permission to work as an engineer or in the information technology sector could be violating the terms of the permit if found operating a cosmetics shop in an open market.
“If you follow up on expatriate quotas and work permits, you can ask: where is the permit the Federal Government gave you to come into Nigeria, and what does it entitle you to do? Some of them may have claimed to be engineers with qualifications and specialised skills that Nigeria does not have. But if you were permitted to come here for construction or IT work and are found selling cosmetics in a market, you are violating the terms of your permit,” he said.
Regional Precedents: Kenya, Tanzania and Ghana
The debate in Nigeria mirrors measures taken elsewhere in Africa. On September 2, less than two weeks before the Lagos Trade Fair protest, Kenyan President William Ruto ordered the closure of small retail shops and informal trading operations run by foreigners across the country.
“All those foreign traders and hawkers doing small businesses should close down,” he said, adding that “from next week, those small businesses must be left for local citizens.” Ruto asserted that Kenya remained open to foreign investment, but argued that foreign investors should create jobs and expand production rather than compete with Kenyans in small businesses. He directed the Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry to begin enforcement action against foreigners engaged in local trading and hawking on September 7. The president stated that foreign direct investment should target large-scale projects such as manufacturing and infrastructure, rather than taking over neighbourhood retail markets meant for local citizens, and stressed that the directive was based on the need to protect local Kenyan traders and ensure that businesses reserved for citizens are not affected by unfair competition.
In July 2025, the Tanzanian government published Government Notice No. 487A, barring non-citizens from 15 economic sectors under the Business Licensing (Prohibition of Business Activities for Non-Citizens) Order 2025. The order explicitly stops foreigners from obtaining or renewing licences for retail sales, mobile money transfers, phone repairs, salon operations and small-scale mining. According to the order, foreigners who violate the directive face fines of at least 10 million Tanzanian shillings, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, and the revocation of their visa and residence permits. It also stated that Tanzanians who assist non-citizens in these restricted sectors face fines of up to 5 million shillings or three months in prison.
Ghana also restricts foreign participation in certain small-scale commercial activities under the Ghana Investment Promotion Authority Act, 2026 (Act 1173), which repealed the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre Act, 2013 (Act 865). Section 32 of the new Act reserves activities such as petty trading, hawking, selling goods or providing services in markets, and selling goods from stalls exclusively for Ghanaian citizens and wholly Ghanaian-owned enterprises. Other restricted activities include operating beauty salons and barbering shops, taxi services with fewer than 25 vehicles, and retailing finished pharmaceutical products. The Act also sets conditions for foreign nationals who wish to engage in other trading activities: under Section 31, a non-citizen must invest at least $500,000 in the trading enterprise and ensure that at least 75 per cent of its employees are skilled Ghanaians. However, these requirements do not permit foreign participation in activities specifically reserved for Ghanaians under Section 32.
The Economic Dimension
Ikemesit Effiong, an economic expert and Managing Partner at SBM Intelligence, said foreign merchants selling directly to consumers could put pressure on local traders by reducing the profit margins that sustain traditional distribution networks.
Conclusion
Nigeria’s current legal position does not expressly bar foreigners from retail trade. The NIPC Act opens most sectors to full foreign ownership outside the negative list, and the FCCPA addresses anti-competitive conduct rather than nationality. Yet, as the Lagos Trade Fair protest shows, the gap between investment law and immigration rules—and between legal permission and public expectation—remains a live and contested issue.
