Connect with us

Feature/OPED

Why Nigeria’s Banks Still on Shaky Ground with Big Profits, Weak Capital

Published

on

Nigeria’s Banks Still on Shaky Ground

By Blaise Udunze

Despite the fragile 2024 economy grappling with inflation, currency volatility, and weak growth, Nigeria’s banking industry was widely portrayed as successful and strong amid triumphal headlines. The figures appeared to signal strength, resilience, and superior management as the Tier-1 banks such as Access Bank, Zenith Bank, GTBank, UBA, and First Bank of Nigeria, collectively reported profits approaching, and in some cases exceeding, N1 trillion. Surprisingly, a year later, these same banks touted as sound and solid are locked in a frenetic race to the capital markets, issuing rights offers and public placements back-to-back to meet the Central Bank of Nigeria’s N500 billion recapitalisation thresholds.

The contradiction is glaring. If Nigeria’s biggest banks are so profitable, why are they unable to internally fund their new capital requirements? Why have no fewer than 27 banks tapped the capital market in quick succession despite repeated assurances of balance-sheet robustness? And more fundamentally, what do these record profits actually say about the real health of the banking system?

The recapitalisation directive announced by the CBN in 2024 was ambitious by design. Banks with international licences were required to raise minimum capital to N500 billion by March 2026, while national and regional banks faced lower but still substantial thresholds ranging from N200 billion to N50 billion, respectively. Looking at the policy, it was sold as a modern reform meant to make banks stronger, more resilient in tough times, and better able to support major long-term economic development.  In theory, strong banks should welcome such reforms. In practice, the scramble that followed has exposed uncomfortable truths about the structure of bank profitability in Nigeria.

At the heart of the inconsistency is a fundamental misunderstanding often encouraged by the banks themselves between profits and capital. Unknown to many, profitability, no matter how impressive, does not automatically translate into regulatory capital. Primarily, the CBN’s recapitalisation framework actually focuses on money paid in by shareholders when buying shares, fresh equity injected by investors over retained earnings or profits that exist mainly on paper.

This distinction matters because much of the profit surge recorded in 2024 and early 2025 was neither cash-generative nor sustainably repeatable. A significant portion of those headline banks’ profits reported actually came from foreign exchange revaluation gains following the sharp fall of the naira after exchange-rate unification. The industry witnessed that banks’ holding dollar-denominated assets their books showed bigger numbers as their balance sheets swell in naira terms, creating enormous paper profits without a corresponding improvement in underlying operational strength. These gains inflated income statements but did little to strengthen core capital, especially after the CBN barred banks from using FX revaluation gains for dividends or routine operations. In effect, banks looked richer without becoming stronger.

Beyond FX effects, Nigerian banks have increasingly relied on non-interest income fees, charges, and transaction levies to drive profitability. While this model is lucrative, it does not necessarily deepen financial intermediation or expand productive lending. High profits built on customer charges rather than loan growth offer limited support for long-term balance-sheet expansion. They also leave banks vulnerable when macroeconomic conditions shift, as is now happening.

Indeed, the recapitalisation exercise coincides with a turning point in the monetary cycle. The extraordinary conditions that supported bank earnings in 2024 and 2025 are beginning to unwind. Analysts now warn that Nigerian banks are approaching earnings reset, as net interest margins the backbone of traditional banking profitability, come under sustained pressure.

Renaissance Capital, in a January note, projects that major banks including Zenith, GTCO, Access Holdings, and UBA will struggle to deliver earnings growth in 2026 comparable to recent performance.

In a real sense, the CBN is expected to lower interest rates by 400 to 500 basis points because inflation is slowing down, and this means that banks will earn less on loans and government bonds, but they may not be able to quickly lower the interest they pay on deposits or other debts. The cash reserve requirements are still elevated, which does not earn interest; banks can’t easily increase or expand lending investments to make up for lower returns. The implications are significant. Net interest margin, the difference between what banks earn on loans and investments and what they pay on deposits, is poised to contract. Deposit competition is intensifying as lenders fight to shore up liquidity ahead of recapitalisation deadlines, pushing up funding costs. At the same time, yields on treasury bills and bonds, long a safe and lucrative haven for banks are expected to soften in a lower-rate environment. The result is a narrowing profit cushion just as banks are being asked to carry far larger equity bases.

Compounding this challenge is the fading of FX revaluation windfalls. With the naira relatively more stable in early 2026, the non-cash gains that once flattered bank earnings have largely evaporated. What remains is the less glamorous reality of core banking operations: credit risk management, cost efficiency, and genuine loan growth in a sluggish economy. In this new environment, maintaining headline profits will be far harder, even before accounting for the dilutive impact of recapitalisation.

That dilution is another underappreciated consequence of the capital rush. Massive share issuances mean that even if banks manage to sustain absolute profit levels, earnings per share and return on equity are likely to decline. Zenith, Access, UBA, and others are dramatically increasing their share counts. The same earnings pie is now being divided among many more shareholders, making individual returns leaner than during the pre-recapitalisation boom. For investors, the optics of strong profits may soon give way to the reality of weaker per-share performance.

Yet banks have pressed ahead, not only out of regulatory necessity but also strategic calculation.

During this period of recapitalization, investors are interested in the stock market with optimism, especially about bank shares, as banks are raising fresh capital, and this makes it easier to attract investments. This has become a season for the management teams to seize the moment to raise funds at relatively attractive valuations, strengthen ownership positions, and position themselves for post-recapitalisation dominance. In several cases, major shareholders and insiders have increased their stakes, as projected in the media, signalling confidence in long-term prospects even as near-term returns face pressure.

There is also a broader structural ambition at play. Well-capitalised banks can take on larger single obligor exposures, finance infrastructure projects, expand regionally, and compete more credibly with pan-African and global peers. From this perspective, recapitalisation is not merely about compliance but about reshaping the competitive hierarchy of Nigerian banking. What will be witnessed in the industry is that those who succeed will emerge larger, fewer, and more powerful. Those that fail will be forced into consolidation, retreat, or irrelevance.

For the wider economy, the outcome is ambiguous. Stronger banks with deeper capital buffers could improve systemic stability and enhance Nigeria’s ability to fund long-term development. The point is that while merging or consolidating banks may make them safer, it can also harm the market and the economy because it will reduce competition, let a few banks dominate, and encourage them to earn easy money from bonds and fees instead of funding real businesses. The truth be told, injecting more capital into the banks without complementary reforms in credit infrastructure, risk-sharing mechanisms, and fiscal discipline, isn’t enough as the aforementioned reforms are also needed.

The rush as exposed in this period, is that the moment Nigerian banks started raising new capital, the glaring reality behind their reported profits became clearer, that profits weren’t purely from good management, while the financial industry is not as sound and strong as its headline figures. The fact that trillion-naira profit banks must return repeatedly to shareholders for fresh capital is not a sign of excess strength, but of structural imbalance.

With the deadline for banks to raise new capital coming soon, by 31 March 2026, the focus has shifted from just raising N500 billion. N200 billion or N50 billion to think about the future shape and quality of Nigeria’s financial industry, or what it will actually look like afterward. Will recapitalisation mark a turning point toward deeper intermediation, lower dependence on speculative gains, and stronger support for economic growth? Or will it simply reset the numbers while leaving underlying incentives unchanged?

The answer will define the next chapter of Nigerian banking long after the capital market roadshows have ended and the profit headlines have faded.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: bl***********@***il.com

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature/OPED

Nigeria’s CPI Rebase Broke the Data: Here’s What the Unbroken Picture Actually Shows

Published

on

Nigeria’s CPI Rebase

By Ejiye Jimeta Ibhawoh

When the NBS rebased the Consumer Price Index in February 2025, and headline inflation fell overnight from 34.80% to 24.48%, yields compressed, and fixed income rallied. A question that should have been straightforward became almost impossible to answer: what is cash actually earning in Nigeria after inflation?

We know what the commentary said. Statistical fix or economic illusion. Cost of living still high. Basket weights shifted. All true, all well-covered. But nobody did the obvious next thing: build the bridge between the old series and the new one, then show what a continuous 15-year picture of Nigerian real returns actually looks like. We did.

The problem with two CPI series

The old NBS CPI ran from a November 2009 base, 740 items weighted by the 2003/04 Nigeria Living Standards Survey. The new methodology uses a 2024 average base, 934 items, and 2023 weights. Food and non-alcoholic beverages dropped from 51.8% to 40.1%. Restaurants and accommodation surged from 1.2% to 12.9%. A 13th COICOP division was added (Insurance and Financial Services). That alone tells you how much the consumption basket has shifted.

These are legitimate improvements. Nigeria’s spending patterns have genuinely changed since 2009. Nobody disputes that.

The problem is continuity. NBS published no officially chain-linked historical series. The old index ends in December 2024. The new one picks up in January 2025. Month-on-month rates don’t match across the boundary. Stops & Gaps documented a particularly egregious discontinuity: the rebased index implies prices fell 12.3% in a single month in December 2024. The largest actual single-month decline since 1995 was 3.5%.

For anyone maintaining a time series (pension fund benchmarking, fixed income attribution, real return measurement), the data is broken. Every analyst in Lagos knows this. Most shrugged and moved on.

Chain-linking: what we built and why

We followed the IMF CPI Manual, Chapter 9, for linking series across base-period changes. December 2024 is the overlap month where both old-base and new-base CPI levels exist. The chain-linking factor comes out at 0.11523. We rescaled the entire old series onto the new base.

The result: 204 continuous monthly CPI observations from February 2009 to January 2026. One hundred and ninety-one back-tested months on the old base, spliced to 13 live months on the new base. No interpolation. No estimation. Month-on-month rates are preserved through the splice point, and every calculation is reproducible from published NBS and CBN data.

We paired this CPI series with CBN 91-day T-bill stop rates from primary auctions to construct the VNG-CRR, the Venoble Nigeria Cash Real Return Index. Two inputs per month. NBS CPI level. CBN stop rate. Fisher equation. All compounds into an index.

The headline: over 204 months, Nigerian cash earned +9.48% annualised in nominal terms and −5.48% annualised in real terms. This is consistent, cumulative, and structural purchasing power destruction.

Put it differently. N1 million placed in 91-day T-bills in February 2009 would be worth roughly N4.7 million as of January 2026 in nominal terms. Adjust for what that money can actually buy, and the real value is closer to N380,000. The T-bill investor multiplied his digits and shrank his wealth.

Why this matters now

Start with pension fund allocation. Nigeria’s pension assets reached N26.66 trillion as of October 2025. Roughly 60% (c.N16 trillion) sits in FGN securities. If the annualised real return on government paper has been negative for 15 consecutive years, what does that mean for 10 million contributor accounts? The OECD flagged this in its 2024 pension report using 2023 data. Pension funds in Nigeria, Angola, and Egypt, where more than half of assets sit in bills and bonds, delivered negative real returns. PenCom raised equity limits in February 2026: RSA Fund I from 30% to 35%, RSA Fund II from 25% to 33% and while this is indeed a step in the right direction, it is not enough.

Then there is the visibility problem. Under the old methodology, a 91-day bill at 18% against 34.8% inflation was obviously underwater. Under the new CPI, the same bill at 15% against 15.15% inflation looks like a break-even. Did real returns improve, or did the statistical agency change the yardstick? In our view, both. Inflation has genuinely decelerated: monthly CPI growth dropped below 1.0% for several consecutive months in H2 2025. But the rebase also flatters the comparison by c.10 percentage points. Without a continuous series, you cannot separate the two effects.

And the sign has flipped. This is not speculation. From August 2025 through January 2026, the VNG-CRR recorded six consecutive months of positive real returns. January 2026 was the strongest at +4.39% real. Month-on-month CPI fell 2.88% while the nominal T-bill return was 1.38%. The real index climbed from

984 to 1,027, above its inception base of 1,000 for the first time.

After 15 years of negative returns, real returns have turned positive. Whether that holds is the question nobody can answer yet.

What we do not know

We don’t have a strong view on the persistence of the disinflation trend. The December 2025 CPI base effect is messy. The rebased December 2024 level was set at 100, which creates arithmetic distortions in year-on-year comparisons as that month rotates out. Headline YoY inflation could spike artificially in December 2025 data even if underlying prices remain stable. Anyone anchoring allocation decisions to year-on-year headline numbers will get whipsawed.

We also cannot tell you whether the new CPI basket accurately captures the cost-of-living reality for the median Nigerian. Restaurants and accommodation at 12.9% may reflect urban middle-class spending in Victoria Island and Wuse. It does not reflect what a civil servant in Kano or a smallholder farmer in Benue pays for food and transport. The CPI measures what it measures. It is not a cost-of-living index. That distinction matters more than most post-rebase commentary acknowledged, and it is the gap a continuous real return series is designed to fill.

The allocation question

Here is what the data does tell you. Over 204 months, the real return hurdle rate (what an alternative investment must beat just to match cash in purchasing-power terms) has been low. Negative, in fact. Any asset class generating positive real returns has beaten cash. Equities: the NGX ASI returned 51.19% in 2025. Real estate in Lekki and Abuja CBD. Dollar-denominated instruments accessed through NAFEM. All cleared the hurdle.

With real yields now positive, the calculus shifts. Cash is no longer guaranteed wealth destruction. But 15 years of compounded losses do not reverse in six months. The real index is at 1,027. It needs sustained positive real returns to recover the purchasing power lost over the prior decade.

For pension fund administrators and asset managers, the implication is straightforward: measure everything against the real return on cash. Not nominal yields. Not headline inflation. The actual, chain-linked, continuously compounded purchasing-power return. If your portfolio is not beating that number, you are losing money regardless of what the nominal statement says.

Why independent benchmarks matter

Nigeria has the largest economy in Africa and the largest pension assets on the continent. Its data infrastructure for institutional investors is among the weakest. South Africa has inflation-linked bonds, a real repo rate published by the SARB, and a mature index ecosystem. Nigeria has a CPI series with a structural break and no official chain-linked alternative.

The gap is not in analytical capacity. There’s no shortage of Nigerian research firms producing excellent work. The gap is infrastructure. Auditable, rules-based benchmarks that any market participant can verify.

Not commentary. Not opinions about what inflation feels like. Published, reproducible numbers.

That is what we built the VNG-CRR to provide. Two inputs. One equation. One index. Updated monthly.

Methodology published. Data downloadable. Every calculation is auditable against source data. All are completely free to the public.

The CPI rebase broke the data. We built the unbroken picture because nobody else did. Whether NBS eventually publishes its own chain-linked series, or the market continues relying on independent providers, says something about where Nigeria’s capital market infrastructure actually stands. We do not think anyone in Abuja is losing sleep over it, but maybe they should be.

E.J. Ibhawoh is the founder and CEO of Venoble Limited, an investment intelligence and capital management firm for African markets. He is a FINRA-qualified capital markets professional with a background spanning investment banking, trading, and software development.

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Mr President, Please Reconsider -No to State Police

Published

on

state police nigeria

By Abba Dukawa

Nigeria stands today at a painful and defining crossroads in its security journey. Across the nation, families live with growing fear as insecurity spreads—kidnappings, banditry, and terrorism have become harsh realities in too many communities. These threats do not respect state boundaries. Organised criminal networks move across states, leaving ordinary citizens feeling exposed and abandoned.

Nigerians are facing intertwined challenges. The anger is no longer whispered in private—it is now spoken openly with frustration and worry. Another pressing issue confronting Nigerians is the renewed debate over the creation of state police. When will the federal government strengthen the effectiveness of its security agencies? How much longer must communities endure this uncertainty?

At the same time, another urgent debate rises from the hearts of the people. In the face of this deepening crisis, should state governments be allowed to establish their own police forces to protect their citizens? Or will Nigeria continue to rely solely on a centralised system that many believe is struggling to respond quickly enough to local threats?

These are not just political questions. They are questions of safety, dignity, and the right of every Nigerian to live without fear. The nation is waiting, hoping for bold decisions that will restore trust, strengthen security, and protect the future of its people.  State police cannot be the answer to these pressing issues that bedevil federal security agencies.

Recently, the President appealed to the leadership of the National Assembly to consider constitutional amendments that would create a legal framework for state police, arguing that such reform is necessary to address Nigeria’s worsening security challenges. The fragmented policing structure could complicate efforts to combat crime effectively.

Reigniting the debate over state police comes as no surprise, given that he has long been seen as an advocate for the idea since his tenure as Governor of Lagos State. He supported the concept then and has continued to promote it as President. Many Nigerians, particularly in the South-West, have long called for state police as a means to address the country’s growing insecurity. Despite the constitutional considerations, discussions around state police continue to evoke strong emotions nationwide.

How will state police address security breaches committed by local militias or vigilante groups such as the OPC in the Southwestern states? What actions would state police take regarding the Amotekun group, which is openly endorsed by Southwest governors, if it were to commit serious violations of the rights of citizens, especially those from other parts of the country? How quickly have the proponents of state police chosen to erase from memory the horrific atrocities the OPC inflicted on the Northern community in Lagos in February 2002? The scars of that tragedy are still raw, yet some behave as though it never happened—as if the pain and the lives lost meant nothing. It is a bitter betrayal of justice and our collective conscience.

Reintroducing this issue at a time when the federal security apparatus is already strained shows a lack of sensitivity. Proponents overlook that Section 214(1) clearly states there is only one police force for the federation, the Nigeria Police Force and no other police force may be established for any part of the federation. The section does not permit the establishment of state police. Policing is on the Exclusive Legislative List, meaning only the federal government can create or control a police force.

Even today, the Nigeria Police Force, under the centralised command of the Inspector-General, faces accusations of harassment and intimidation of the weak and vulnerable citizens. If such problems persist under federal control, imagine the risks of placing police authority under state governors, who already wield significant influence over state and local structures.

Implications For The State Police Structures In The Hand Of The State Governors

I must state clearly: I do not support the establishment of state police—at least not at this stage of Nigeria’s development. Our institutions remain fragile, and introducing such a system carries significant risks of abuse. History offers reasons for caution: the Native Authority police of the past were often linked to political repression and misuse of power.

Supporters argue that state police would bring law enforcement closer to local communities and improve response to crime. However, there are serious concerns rooted in Nigeria’s social realities.

Nigeria is a diverse nation with multiple ethnic and religious sentiments. If recruitment into state police forces becomes dominated by particular groups, minority communities may feel marginalised or threatened.

State police could deepen divisions and weaken public trust. State-controlled Police could also become instruments of political intimidation, especially during election periods, potentially targeting opposition figures, critics, and journalists.

Financial capacity is another major concern. Establishing and maintaining a professional police force requires substantial investment in training, equipment, salaries, welfare, and infrastructure. Many states already struggle to pay workers and provide essential services. How, then, can they adequately fund a state police? The likely outcome is poorly trained, under-equipped personnel—conditions that often foster corruption and inefficiency.

Even under federal oversight, Nigeria’s police system struggles with weak accountability and abuse of power. Transferring these weaknesses to the state level without safeguards could have severe consequences.

A poorly structured state police force could become loyal to governors rather than the Constitution, serving political interests rather than citizens’ interests. For these reasons, introducing state police, even with the constitutional amendment, could create more problems than it solves. Sustainability, accountability, and adherence to constitutional principles are critical and will likely be violated

Nigeria must strengthen law enforcement while protecting citizens’ rights and preserving national unity.  Mr President, please reconsider your decision on state police. Nigerians want a strong, effective, and unified police force, not one that risks further dividing a system already struggling to meet its constitutional obligations.

Dukawa can be reached at ab**********@***il.com

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Measures at Ensuring Africa’s Food Sovereignty

Published

on

Africa's Food Sovereignty

By Kestér Kenn Klomegâh

China’s investments in Africa have primarily been in the agricultural sector, reinforcing its support for the continent to attain food security for the growing population, estimated currently at 1.5 billion people. With a huge expanse of land and untapped resources, China’s investment in agriculture, focused on increasing local production, has been described as highly appreciable.

Brazil has adopted a similar strategy in its policy with African countries; its investments have concentrated in a number of countries, especially those rich in natural resources. It has significantly contributed to Africa’s economic growth by improving access to affordable machinery, industrial inputs, and adding value to consumer goods. Thus, Africa has to reduce product imports which can be produced locally.

The China and Brazil in African Agriculture Project has just published online a series of studies concerning Chinese and Brazilian support for African agriculture. They appeared in an upcoming issue of World Development.  The six articles focusing on China are available below:

–A New Politics of Development Cooperation? Chinese and Brazilian Engagements in African Agriculture by Ian Scoones, Kojo Amanor, Arilson Favareto and Qi Gubo.

–South-South Cooperation, Agribusiness and African Agricultural Development: Brazil and China in Ghana and Mozambique by Kojo Amanor and Sergio Chichava.

–Chinese State Capitalism? Rethinking the Role of the State and Business in Chinese Development Cooperation in Africa by Jing Gu, Zhang Chuanhong, Alcides Vaz and Langton Mukwereza.

–Chinese Migrants in Africa: Facts and Fictions from the Agri-food Sector in Ethiopia and Ghana by Seth Cook, Jixia Lu, Henry Tugendhat and Dawit Alemu.

–Chinese Agricultural Training Courses for African Officials: Between Power and Partnerships by Henry Tugendhat and Dawit Alemu.

–Science, Technology and the Politics of Knowledge: The Case of China’s Agricultural Technology Demonstration Centres in Africa by Xiuli Xu, Xiaoyun Li, Gubo Qi, Lixia Tang and Langton Mukwereza.

 Strategic partnerships and the way forward: African leaders have to adopt import substitution policies, re-allocate financial resources toward attaining domestic production, and sustain self-sufficiency.

Maximising the impact of resource mobilisation requires collaboration among governments, key external partners, investment promotion agencies, financial institutions, and the private sector. Partnerships must be aligned with national development priorities that can promote value addition, support industrialisation, and deepen regional and continental integration.

Continue Reading

Trending