Against the backdrop of conflict-driven energy instability, Africa is working to reduce this exposure over the longer term – even an important oil producer like Ghana meets only roughly one-third of its fuel demand from domestic refineries. Leading the charge, Nigerian oil tycoon Aliko Dangote recently argued that Africa could become largely fuel self-sufficient by 2030, supported by major refining capacity in continent-leading Nigeria and new projects such as the planned refinery on Kenya’s coast.

That ambition speaks to a deeper strategic need: African economies cannot remain permanently dependent on distant refining hubs, volatile sea lanes and emergency substitution from Asia whenever Middle Eastern flows are disrupted. Zambia, for example, has already begun moving in this direction, with Vice President Mutale Nalumango confirming earlier this year that the country is exploring more regionalised supply options, including talks with Nigeria’s Dangote Refinery, as it looks to reduce exposure to distant Middle Eastern supply chains.

However, greater African refining capacity will not, on its own, remove the vulnerabilities facing landlocked countries. Even if more fuel is sourced within the continent, Zambia will still depend on imported products moving through long corridors, multiple borders and critical infrastructure, such as the TAZAMA pipeline. For a country consuming over 5 million litres of petroleum products a day and fully reliant on imported refined fuel, external shocks quickly become domestic price and supply pressures.

When emergency relief creates new risks

The Zambian government’s response since the start of the Iran war shows the scale of that pressure. As global prices rose, Lusaka approved emergency relief measures, including VAT zero-rating and a temporary suspension of excise duty on petrol and diesel imports, while also tightening control over the TAZAMA pipeline to protect supply. While these measures decisions may have helped Zambia navigate an immediate crisis, they also show how quickly measures designed to shield consumers can create new vulnerabilities in the fuel market.

When taxes are suspended, prices move unevenly across borders and supply chains come under pressure, illicit operators have greater incentives to divert, dump or smuggle fuel into the domestic market. In that environment, protecting consumers is not only about keeping fuel available and affordable; it is also about ensuring that the fuel reaching the market is legitimate, properly taxed and safe. Fuel sovereignty, then, is not only about where supply comes from; it is also about who controls the technologies, data and enforcement systems that determine whether fuel is lawful, taxable and fit for use.

Why Zambia’s fuel marking tender matters

That is where fuel marking becomes central. Under ERB Board Chairperson James Banda, Zambia’s regulator must not only manage supply, but protect the quality, safety and integrity of the fuel reaching the market. The ERB’s 2026 tender for fuel marking and quality monitoring is therefore more than routine procurement; it is part of Zambia’s wider response to a more volatile fuel environment.

Introduced in 2018, Zambia’s current fuel marking system was designed to distinguish legitimate domestic fuel from transit, smuggled or adulterated products. The incumbent technology provider is Authentix, the US firm selected in 2018 as Zambia’s fuel-marking technology and services partner, while the current local arrangement also involves local provider Petro Z. At the time of its launch, the ERB estimated illegal fuel activity at filling stations at 21%, costing roughly US$81 million a year in lost tax revenue. Yet the stakes are higher still because Zambia is both an end-market and a transit country for fuel moving to neighbouring markets, with the ERB warning that this creates risks of dumping, adulteration and diversion of tax-free transit fuel.

When illicit fuel enters the supply chain, the damage goes beyond the treasury, as fuel blended with substandard products can raise sulphur levels, worsen air pollution, damage engines and expose communities to avoidable health and environmental risks. These significant risks make the effectiveness of Zambia’s marking system a public interest question, not simply a technical one.

The key question, therefore, is whether the current system is strong enough for the market Zambia now faces. The same technology provider has been linked to the programme since 2018, yet no robust independent public assessment appears to have shown how effectively it has reduced tax losses, deterred dumping or improved enforcement outcomes. Recent concerns in Ghana, where a fuel marking programme using technology from the same provider faced Auditor-General criticism over unmarked fuel volumes, underline the need for scrutiny rather than assumption. Before any renewal, Zambia needs evidence of performance, not simply continuity.

Africa’s fuel sovereignty starts with trusted oversight

In that context, the procurement process must do more than confirm the familiar choice. An incumbent naturally benefits from relationships, experience and administrative familiarity, but public procurement exists to test whether continuity still serves the public interest. Zambia deserves a fuel-marking system selected on merit, through a fair assessment of all credible providers against transparent criteria, from technological robustness and enforcement support to value for money and proven impact.

Data sovereignty should also be an explicit consideration in that tender process. A system used to police illicit fuel should give Zambian authorities secure, usable data on terms they control, particularly if foreign-controlled technology or cloud infrastructure could expose enforcement information to extraterritorial regimes such as the US CLOUD Act. The point is not to exclude foreign expertise, but to ensure that foreign commercial interests, whether from the US or other global powers, never supersede Zambia’s public interest.

More broadly, Zambia’s new tender can set a higher regional standard for how African governments protect fuel quality, public revenue and consumer safety in a volatile energy market. As Africa moves to strengthen fuel sovereignty and build more resilient supply chains amid prolonged Middle East instability, illicit fuel can no longer be treated as a secondary risk; it is a socioeconomic threat that undermines the continent’s ability to plan, invest and grow with confidence.

Related posts:

1. Fuel to be sold only to clients with authorized containers-ERB
2. Motorists in Choma contend with fuel shortages
3. ERB refutes looming fuel hikes reports