Operating profit and financial results for Nigerian businesses remained in expansion territory during June 2026, according to the Nigerian Economic Summit Group’s Business Confidence Monitor. This continued expansion for capital owners occurred even as investment and exports remained depressed across the economy. The report, which tracks business activity, revealed a complex picture where some sectors saw growth, but underlying structural issues continued to weigh on the broader productive capacity.
Business activity in Nigeria’s manufacturing sector registered 106.4 points in June 2026, a figure that, while in the expansion region, marked a decline from 114.1 points in May 2026 and 123.6 points recorded one year ago in June 2025. Agriculture also moved into expansion at 103.9 points in June, up from 97.5 in May 2026, yet it too fell from 108.9 points in June 2025. The non-manufacturing sector followed a similar pattern, rising to 106.8 points from 99.4 in May 2026, but still below the 120.7 points seen in June 2025.
The NESG report claimed Nigeria’s business environment expanded for the sixth consecutive month in 2026. However, this expansion was uneven across sectors. While manufacturing and trade maintained expansion, their performance weakened compared to the previous month. Services, by contrast, contracted during June, indicating a tightening for workers in that sector.
Capital's Constraints and Gains
Firms across Nigeria continued to face significant constraints, including limited access to finance, persistent power outages, high rental costs, and pervasive insecurity throughout June. These systemic issues, according to the report, “squeezed profit margins and constrained new investments” for manufacturers. Input prices remained elevated, even as the overall cost of doing business moderated slightly.
Despite these challenges, the core indicators of surplus extraction—operating profit and financial results—persisted in the expansion territory. More than half of the key BCM sub-indices, which also included general business situation, production, demand conditions, supply order, access to credit, cash flow, and employment, recorded stronger performance compared with May 2026. This suggests that while capital faced headwinds, it largely succeeded in maintaining its rate of return.
Performance within the manufacturing sector itself was mixed. Only textile, apparel & footwear subsectors showed improved performance over May 2026. Food, beverage & tobacco, and pulp, paper & paper products experienced weaker expansion. Meanwhile, critical subsectors like cement, plastic and rubber products, and basic metal, iron and steel fell into contraction, signaling deeper structural problems in industrial production.
Manufacturers specifically grappled with a litany of issues: credit constraints, energy shortages, inadequate raw materials, infrastructure deficits, and high rental costs. These conditions directly impacted capital's ability to expand, leading to “constrained new investments” despite the continued expansion of operating profits. The focus remains on the health of capital, not the conditions of labor.
The State's Role in Capital's Predicament
The report implicitly highlights the state’s failure to provide essential infrastructure and a stable environment for capital accumulation. Persistent “power outages” and “infrastructure deficits” are not mere inconveniences; they are systemic failures that increase the cost of doing business and hinder productive capacity. These failures ultimately impact the working class through job insecurity and higher prices.
High rental costs, identified as a major constraint for firms, represent a direct transfer of wealth from productive capital (and ultimately from labor) to the landlord class. This form of extraction is facilitated by a legal and economic framework that prioritizes private property rights over collective well-being. The state, through its inaction on these costs, effectively underwrites this transfer.
Labor's Unseen Burden
While the “employment” sub-index remained in expansion, the report offers no details on wage levels, job security, or working conditions. This narrow focus on aggregate numbers obscures the precarity faced by workers in an economy marked by uneven growth and depressed investment. The “insecurity” cited as a constraint for firms often translates into direct threats and instability for the working class.
The NESG report, framed within the dominant economic paradigm, meticulously tracks the health of capital and its ability to extract profit. It identifies symptoms like “depressed investment” and “squeezed profit margins” but avoids questioning the fundamental structures that produce these contradictions. The solutions implied are always about optimizing conditions for capital, never about addressing the systemic underpayment of labor or the privatization of collective resources.