Obligation map · refined petroleum
Nigeria → Namibia, Zambia, Botswana
What obliges a firm moving value on this corridor, with the instrument and the source against each. Free, and permanently at this address. The framework is currently unmapped and next reviewed .
The obligation stack
Nothing here, and that is the finding. No agreement, concession, licence or regulatory approval has been established for this corridor from any source reviewed. It is being reported as commercially real while its obligation basis is unestablished.
This table stays empty until a primary instrument exists. Filling it from press coverage would be the one thing this register refuses to do.
What changed
The changes themselves are public — a gazette was published, a deadline passed. What each one means for this corridor, and what a firm on it has to do differently, is the log. That is the part you subscribe to.
· NA · medium severity
Afreximbank gives a project update on Walvis Bay fuel hub at a virtual press conference; Namibia Ports Authority confirms plans exist
Trade press · assessment in the log
· NG · low severity
Dangote announces intent to build fuel distribution infrastructure serving Southern Africa
Trade press · assessment in the log
Claims checked on this corridor
The Nigeria to Namibia fuel corridor has an established regulatory basis
unsupported
Three sources across ten months name no agreement, concession, licence or regulatory approval. Two state explicitly that formal terms are undisclosed and one records a Dangote spokesperson declining to comment. The corridor is being reported as commercially real while its obligation basis is unestablished in every public source.
The Walvis Bay fuel hub represents an investment of approximately $3 billion
contradicted
One source attributes roughly $3bn to the Namibia project. Another states $20bn, but that figure is the construction cost of the Lagos refinery, which is a separate asset. The two are reported adjacently and are being conflated. Neither figure is sourced to a party to the transaction.
A 2,000 km pipeline will carry fuel from the Dangote refinery to Southern Africa
open
One source describes a 2,000 km pipeline. The other two describe marine delivery into Walvis Bay storage followed by road haulage, and mention procurement of trucks. Lagos to Walvis Bay exceeds 2,000 km and the route is maritime, so a pipeline of that length cannot connect them. The claim may describe onward distribution rather than the trunk leg, or may be reported in error. Not resolvable from available sources.
Storage capacity of at least 1.6 million barrels is planned at Walvis Bay
partially confirmed
The figure is consistent across two independent sources and the Namibia Ports Authority confirms the plans exist. What is confirmed is a stated intention. Construction is described as not yet begun in the most detailed source.
Delivery from Nigeria to Southern African markets will take roughly five days
unsupported
A stated target attributed to a financing party, not an observed transit time. Nothing has moved on this route, so there is nothing to measure against.
Sending money from South Africa to Zimbabwe cost 12.7 percent in early 2024
partially confirmed
Confirmed as to the figure, corrected as to the period and the basis. The report states the cost "averaged a high 12.7 percent in the first quarter of 2024" — Q1 2024 specifically, not early 2024 loosely. The amount is not stated in the prose: it appears as the axis label of Figure 2, "Cost of Sending $200 (% of sent amount)", sourced to World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide. So the figure is a $200 send and the citation is a chart, not a sentence.
The 12.7 percent cost is measured against a G20 target of 3 percent by 2027
contradicted
The report compares it against 3 percent by 2030, not 2027, and attributes the target to the Sustainable Development Goals rather than the G20 Roadmap. Its words: "far exceeding the G20's target, set forth in the Sustainable Development Goals, of 3 percent by 2030." Both 3 percent targets exist in the wider literature — 2030 under SDG 10.c and 2027 under the G20 Roadmap — and the IMF's own web abstract for this report cites 2027, which is how the error entered. The report body governs.
The report found that consumers lack independent price comparison tools that would help them find cheaper options and stimulate competition
contradicted
No such finding appears. The report makes a recommendation, twice, that transparency "can be further enhanced to encourage greater competition among market players and help reduce pricing for end-users, for example through the provision of price comparison databases", and separately finds that "it is difficult for most end users (especially those in vulnerable groups) to properly understand and compare the characteristics of various options to send payments". The substance is close and the recommendation is arguably a stronger warrant than the absence claimed, but the sentence attributed to the IMF and World Bank is not theirs and must not be quoted as theirs.
The report was published in November 2025 following an August 2024 mission
partially confirmed
Two dates, both needed. The document itself is dated NOVEMBER 2024 on its cover and carries a 2025 IMF copyright; the IMF published it on its website on 5 November 2025. The mission visited Pretoria from 5 to 13 August 2024 and the report presents its assessment as of 10 September 2024. Citing only the 2025 date looks wrong to anyone holding the PDF; citing only 2024 misses a year of delay between assessment and publication.
Remittances are close to a tenth of Zimbabwe's GDP
confirmed
The report states inward remittances accounted for 9.6 percent of Zimbabwean GDP in 2023, and that Zimbabwe received nearly half of all remittances sent from South Africa within SADC that year.
Over half the South Africa to Zimbabwe remittance market moves through informal channels
confirmed
The report states "over 50 percent of the market operates through informal channels", and attributes it to the financial exclusion of undocumented migrants and dependence on cash. An estimated 1.7 million Zimbabwean migrants live in South Africa, and money transfer operators believe the true number is significantly higher. Note the scope: this is the ZA-ZW corridor. The FinMark figure of roughly 70 percent already carried by the register is South Africa to SADC as a whole. The two are not interchangeable and must never be cited without their scope.
Next dates to watch
Listed because a date you do not know about is the expensive kind. Subscribers are alerted ahead of each one, with what it changes for this corridor.
· tbc
Bank of Namibia exchange control position on fuel import settlement
· fixed
Close of comment, draft Crypto Asset Manual
· fixed
Corridor review — has any instrument been granted
What is free and what is not
Everything above is free and always will be — no login, no email, no form. Copy it, cite it, print it. The map is not the product.
The product is that it stays correct. Fourteen regulator sources are watched so that when one of these obligations moves, subscribers are told what moved, what it means for this corridor, and what to do differently — and can later export a dated, sourced record proving they were told. A map you copied today is a photograph. It starts rotting immediately, and you will not know when it does.