As cement prices soar despite abundant local raw materials, home ownership is increasingly out of reach for millions of Nigerians. Festus Akanbi examines the paradox of rising prices and manufacturers’ bumper profits
For millions of Nigerians nurturing the modest ambition of owning a roof over their heads, the arithmetic of home ownership is becoming increasingly brutal.
In May 2023, 100 bags of cement could reportedly be bought for about N380,000. By August 2026, the same quantity cost approximately N1.25 million, an increase of about 229 per cent. In some parts of the country, a 50-kilogramme bag has lately traded between N13,000 and N15,000, compared with roughly N3,300-N3,500 in 2021.
For a middle-income earner contemplating a modest bungalow, cement alone can swallow several months of earnings. Add land, reinforcement rods, roofing materials, labour, plumbing, electrical fittings and transportation, and the traditional Nigerian aspiration of becoming a landlord increasingly looks like a privilege beyond reach.
A Deepening Housing Crisis
The consequences go beyond individual frustration. Nigeria is already battling an enormous housing shortage. In May, Lagos State Commissioner for Housing, Moruf Akinderu-Fatai, citing findings of the National Housing Data Technical Committee, put the official national housing deficit at 14.925 million units, warning that the effective shortage could approach 28 million units without sustained intervention.
Against this backdrop, rising cement prices assume broader economic significance. Cement remains indispensable to Nigeria’s conventional building system. When its price rises, contractors revise quotations, developers increase selling prices, landlords seek higher rents, and public infrastructure becomes more expensive.
Principal Partner of Space Button Architecture Limited, Amusan Oluseyi, captured the dilemma, arguing that the persistent increase was difficult to explain given Nigeria’s considerable limestone deposits and cement production capacity. He warned that volatile prices were already increasing construction costs, house values and rents.
The Nigerian Paradox
Perhaps the most troubling aspect is that Nigeria does not suffer from an obvious shortage of cement-making capacity.
Figures cited by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) put installed cement production capacity at between 60 million and 65 million metric tonnes annually, against estimated domestic consumption of 25 million to 30 million tonnes. Nigeria is also a net exporter of cement.
Ordinarily, such excess capacity should encourage competition and exert downward pressure on prices. Instead, Nigerians are paying considerably more.
That contradiction has attracted the attention of the FCCPC, which is investigating possible manipulation and anti-competitive practices. Its preliminary cross-border investigation found significant price disparities between Nigeria and comparable cement-producing markets. The commission stressed that its preliminary findings did not constitute a determination of wrongdoing. At the same time, manufacturers cited energy costs, currency depreciation, imported machinery and spare parts, transportation and logistics as factors behind higher prices.
Those explanations cannot simply be dismissed. Cement may be manufactured locally and limestone locally sourced, but production is not insulated from Nigeria’s wider economic difficulties.
Public Relations Secretary of the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, John Agbezin, identified energy, foreign exchange, logistics, insecurity and multiple taxation as significant cost pressures. Poor roads and insecurity can force haulage trucks onto longer routes, substantially increasing retail prices.
Chief Executive Officer of Sigvent Property Trust Limited, Benjamin Onigbinde, similarly identified transportation and intermediaries between factories and construction sites as important components of retail pricing. While large contractors may negotiate direct supplies, smaller builders often buy through layers of distributors.
Demand is also rising from massive public infrastructure projects. Former President of the Real Estate Developers Association of Nigeria, Aliyu Oroji Wamakko, argued that using cement for major highway projects, including coastal highways, is intensifying pressure on supplies available to the housing market.
Manufacturers Smile to
the Banks
Yet, while prospective homeowners count the escalating number of bags required to complete their buildings, the financial statements of major cement producers tell a strikingly different story.
Dangote Cement reported revenue of N2.51 trillion for the first half of 2026, up 21.35 per cent from N2.07 trillion a year earlier. Profit after tax rose 22.69 per cent to N638.53 billion, while gross profit climbed to N1.59 trillion.
BUA Cement recorded an even sharper improvement. Its H1 2026 revenue increased 25.6 per cent to N728.93 billion, while profit after tax jumped almost 80 per cent from N180.9 billion to N324.88 billion.
Collectively, Dangote Cement, BUA Cement and HBM Nigeria posted about N1.17 trillion in profit after tax in the first six months of 2026, up 40.48 per cent from N834.06 billion in the corresponding period of 2025, while combined revenue reached N3.91 trillion.
There is nothing inherently objectionable about manufacturers making profits. Profitable companies invest, employ workers, pay taxes and reward shareholders. But when an essential building material becomes progressively unaffordable in a country struggling with a severe housing shortage, while producers enjoy rapidly expanding earnings, legitimate questions arise about competition, pricing efficiency and whether consumers are benefiting from substantial domestic production capacity.
Between the Factory and the Homeless Nigerian
This is why the FCCPC investigation is important. Nigerians need something more definitive than accusations of profiteering on one side and references to energy and logistics costs on the other. The country needs transparent information on ex-factory prices, distributor margins, capacity utilisation, production costs and the impact of exports and infrastructure contracts on domestic supply.
Competition also matters. Three leading manufacturers reportedly control more than 90 per cent of installed production capacity. A highly concentrated market does not automatically establish collusion, but it makes rigorous competition oversight indispensable.
Government cannot escape responsibility either. Bad roads, expensive energy, multiple taxation, insecurity, foreign-exchange pressures and inefficient transportation ultimately find their way into the price of cement. Bringing down construction costs therefore requires more than ordering manufacturers to reduce prices.
Nigeria must improve logistics, encourage new entrants, reduce avoidable taxes and levies, support alternative building technologies and strengthen competition. Greater transparency between factory-gate and retail prices would also help establish where excessive margins, if any, enter the distribution chain.
For Nigerian families saving painstakingly to escape annual rent, the debate is not academic. Every additional N1,000 on a bag of cement raises the cost of blocks, foundations, columns and plastering, pushing home ownership farther away.
Nigeria has the limestone, factories, and production capacity far above estimated domestic consumption. Its cement companies are recording formidable profits.
What millions of Nigerians increasingly lack is the purchasing power to buy the cement needed to put a roof over their heads.
That is the contradiction policymakers can no longer afford to plaster over.