Economy
Why We Challenged SEC Action Against us in Court—Oando
By Modupe Gbadeyanka
Oando Plc on Tuesday explained why it headed for the court to stop suspension of its share price on the trading floor of the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
In a statement released today, the oil firm said it took the action because it found difficult to believe that the capital market regulator could contradict itself in its report.
“On October 18, 2017 the SEC issued a public notice stating amongst others that it had issued a directive to the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) for a full suspension in the trading of Oando shares for a period of forty-eight hours followed by a technical suspension until further directed and; announced that a forensic audit into the affairs of the Company be conducted by a team of independent professional firms.
“Oando is of the view that the SEC’s directives are illegal, invalid and calculated to prejudice the business of the Company. The Company being dissatisfied with the above mentioned actions and to safeguard the interests of the Company and its shareholders immediately took steps to file an action against the SEC and the NSE.
“On Monday October 23, 2017 the Company obtained an ex-parte order from the Federal High Court (FHC) granting an interim injunction, as follows: an order restraining the NSE and any other party working on their behalf from giving effect to the directive of the SEC to implement a technical suspension of the shares of the Company pending the hearing and determination of the motion for injunction and; an order restraining the SEC and any other parties claiming through or working on behalf of the Commission from conducting any forensic audit into the affairs of the Company pending the hearing and determination of the motion for injunction.
“The NSE and SEC were served with the enrolled court order today Tuesday, October 24, 2017 after the technical suspension was carried out by the NSE on Monday, October 23, 2017.
“In our view both the NSE and the SEC are legally obliged to comply with the interim orders pending the substantive determination of the suit.
“The Company has found it necessary to take these actions for the following reasons: having declared to the public that it has acted drastically to suspend the shares of Oando Plc due to its ‘weighty’ findings in the course of its investigations, SEC then concludes that a forensic audit is necessary in order to investigate whether its findings are true. This is a clear contradiction.
“How did the SEC arrive at its findings if it cannot be sure of the veracity or otherwise of those findings and how did it ascribe the appropriate level of weight to be given to those findings, enough to warrant an immediate suspension followed by a technical suspension of the shares of the Company, if those findings are still mere allegations at this point.
“The Company has fully co-operated with the SEC since the commencement of this investigation in May 2017 and provided all information requested. It is evident that submissions made to the SEC have not been duly considered due to the conclusions reached and actions taken, as all of the matters raised have been responded to in great detail with all supporting documents requested by the SEC. The Company repeatedly, through its Chairman, requested an audience with the SEC to enable it present its case before the Commission but to date, no invitation has been extended to the Company.
“Each of the alleged infractions has a penalty as prescribed by the respective provisions of the ISA, SEC Code, SEC Rules and Regulations, NSE Listing Rules and CAMA; none of them whether singularly or together warrants the suspension of free trading in the securities of the Company or the institution of a forensic audit.
“The latest actions taken by the SEC are prejudicial to the business of the Company as it would hinder the ability of the Company to enter into new business transactions and affect the confidence that existing stakeholders (lenders, JV Partners, Vendors etc.) have in transacting business with the Company. The Company has received numerous queries from critical stakeholders, including its lenders as a result of the SEC’s actions and an indefinite technical suspension of its shares as well as an open-ended forensic audit will negatively impact the ability of the Company to conduct its day-to-day business and meet the expectations of all its stakeholders.
“By two letters dated August 24th and August 28th the Chairman of Oando petitioned the DG of the SEC alleging bias and lack of due process in the way and manner in which the SEC has conducted this investigation. The current action by the SEC, despite its internal findings, confirms that the SEC appears to be working to its own conclusion rather than looking at the facts before it and acting in the best interest of the Company and the minority shareholders whom it claims it seeks to protect.
“In its most recent communication to the Group Chief Executive (GCE) dated October 17, 2017, the SEC unilaterally qualified one of the petitioners, Ansbury Inc. as a Whistleblower despite the fact that Ansbury brought its petition to the SEC as an indirect ‘shareholder’ of the Company. The Company has from the date of its earliest communication to the SEC on this matter, challenged both the legal capacity of Ansbury to bring a petition against the Company and the SEC’s jurisdiction to consider the petition. This is because, Ansbury is not in fact a shareholder of the Company and furthermore, there is an on-going arbitration in the United Kingdom in respect of its indirect investment in the Company.
“Under the SEC’s Complaints Management Framework it shall not consider any matter which is currently in arbitration. The unilateral and arbitrary re-classification by the SEC of the basis upon which Ansbury wrote its petition at this late stage is at odds with accepted principles of fairness and due process.
“It is also difficult to understand how Ansbury can be a whistle-blower when the information and allegations contained in its petition were obtained from the publicly disclosed 2016 Audited Financial Statements of Oando and based on Ansbury’s own interpretation of those financial statements.
“The two petitioners, Alhaji Dahiru Mangal and Ansbury Inc. were copied on the SEC’s most recent communication to the Company’s GCE on October 17, 2017. It is unheard of and prejudicial to our case for petitioners to be copied on correspondence to the investigated party on findings yet to be concluded. Throughout this investigation, at no point has the SEC copied the Company in its correspondence to the petitioners. We are concerned that the petitioners have been given undue access to what ought to be strictly confidential information between ourselves and the SEC to the detriment of the Company.
“The cost implication of the forensic audit (N160, 000,000.00) which is to be borne by the Company is onerous, unnecessary and irresponsible in light of the above submissions and not the best use of shareholder funds at this time.
“It is our position that the SEC has not presented a strong case to support either the directive to suspend free trading in the shares of the Company or the engagement of a Forensic Auditor to conduct an audit into the affairs of the Company. The Company’s response to each of the alleged findings made by the SEC are stated in the following link https://goo.gl/JJzXZL.
“The Company reserves the exercise of its full legal rights in the protection of the Company’s business and assets whilst remaining committed to act in the best interests of all its shareholders,” Oando said.
Economy
Naira Down Again at NAFEX, Trades N1,359/$1
By Adedapo Adesanya
The Naira further weakened against the Dollar in the Nigerian Autonomous Foreign Exchange Market (NAFEX) for the fourth straight session this week on Thursday, February 26.
At the official market yesterday, the Nigerian Naira lost N3.71 or 0.27 per cent to trade at N1,359.82/$1 compared with the previous session’s N1,356.11/$1.
In the same vein, the local currency depreciated against the Pound Sterling in the same market window on Thursday by N8.27 to close at N1,843.23/£1 versus Wednesday’s closing price of N1,834.96/£1, and against the Euro, it crashed by N8.30 to quote at N1,606.89/€1, in contrast to the midweek’s closing price of N1,598.59/€1.
But at the GTBank forex desk, the exchange rate of the Naira to the Dollar remained unchanged at N1,367/$1, and also at the parallel market, it maintained stability at N1,365/$1.
The continuation of the decline of the Nigerian currency is attributed to a surge in foreign payments that have outpaced the available Dollars in the FX market.
In a move to address the ongoing shortfall at the official window, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) intervened by selling $100 million to banks and dealers on Tuesday.
However, the FX support failed to reverse the trend, though analysts see no cause for alarm, given that the authority recently mopped up foreign currency to achieve balance and it is still within the expected trading range of N1,350 and N1,450/$1.
As for the cryptocurrency market, major tokens posted losses over the last 24 hours as traders continued to de-risk alongside equities following Nvidia’s earnings-driven pullback, with Ripple (XRP) down by 2.7 per cent to $1.40, and Dogecoin (DOGE) down by 1.6 per cent to $0.0098.
Further, Litecoin (LTC) declined by 1.3 per cent to $55.87, Ethereum (ETH) slipped by 0.9 per cent to $2,036.89, Bitcoin (BTC) tumbled by 0.7 per cent to $67,708.21, Cardano (ADA) slumped by 0.6 per cent to $0.2924, and Solana (SOL) depreciated by 0.4 per cent to $87.22, while Binance Coin (BNB) gained 0.4 per cent to sell for $629.95, with the US Dollar Tether (USDT) and the US Dollar Coin (USDC) closing flat at $1.00 each.
Economy
Crude Oil Falls as Geopolitical Risk Around Iran Clouds Supply Outlook
By Adedapo Adesanya
Crude oil settled lower on Thursday as investors tracked developments in talks between the United States and Iran over the latter’s nuclear programme, weighing potential supply concerns if hostilities escalate.
Brent crude futures lost 10 cents or 0.14 per cent to close at $70.75 a barrel, while the US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures depreciated by 21 cents or 0.32 per cent to $65.21 a barrel.
The US and Iran held indirect talks in Geneva on Thursday over their long-running nuclear dispute to avert a conflict after US President Donald Trump ordered a military build-up in the region.
Prices had gained earlier in the session after media reports indicated the talks had stalled over US insistence on zero enrichment of uranium by Iran, as well as a demand for the delivery of all 60 per cent-enriched uranium to the US.
However, prices then retreated after the two countries extended talks into next week, reducing the immediate strike potential.
Iran’s Foreign Minister, who confirmed talks will continue next week, said Thursday’s talks were the most serious exchanges with the US yet, saying Iran clearly laid out its demand for lifting sanctions and the process for relief.
His counterpart from Oman, who is handling the talks, said significant progress was made in Thursday’s talks. The Omani minister’s upbeat assessment followed indirect talks between Iranian Foreign Minister and US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Geneva, with one session in the morning and the second in the afternoon.
He will also hold talks with US Vice President JD Vance and other US officials in Washington on Friday.
The Trump administration has insisted that Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for armed groups in the region must be part of the negotiations.
The American President said on February 19 that Iran must make a deal in 10 to 15 days, warning that “really bad things” would otherwise happen.
On Tuesday, he briefly laid out his case for a possible attack on Iran in his State of the Union speech, underlining that while he preferred a diplomatic solution, he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Meanwhile, the US continues to amass forces in the Middle Eastern region, with the military saying it is prepared to execute orders given by the US President.
Economy
Why Transparency Matters in Your Choice of a Financial Broker
Choosing a Forex broker is essentially picking a partner to hold the wallet. In 2026, the market is flooded with flashy ads promising massive leverage and “zero fees,” but most of that is just noise. Real transparency is becoming a rare commodity. It isn’t just a corporate buzzword; it’s the only way a trader can be sure they aren’t playing against a stacked deck. If a broker’s operations are a black box, the trader is flying blind, which is a guaranteed way to blow an account.
The Scam of “Zero Commissions”
The first place transparency falls apart is in the pricing. Many brokers scream about “zero commissions” to get people through the door, but they aren’t running a charity. If they aren’t charging a flat fee, they are almost certainly hiding their profit in bloated spreads or “slippage.” A trader might hit buy at one price and get filled at a significantly worse one without any explanation. This acts as a silent tax on every trade. A transparent broker doesn’t hide the bill; they provide a live, auditable breakdown of costs so the trader can actually calculate their edge.
The Conflict of Market Making
It is vital to know who is on the other side of the screen. Many brokers act as “Market Makers,” which is a polite way of saying they win when the trader loses. This creates a massive conflict of interest. There is little incentive for a broker to provide fast execution if a client’s profit hurts their own bottom line. A broker with nothing to hide is open about using an ECN or STP model, simply passing orders to the big banks and taking a small, visible fee. If a broker refuses to disclose their execution model, they are likely betting against their own clients.
Regulation as a Safety Net
Transparency is worthless without an actual watchdog. A broker that values its reputation leads with its licenses from heavy-hitters like the FCA or ASIC. They don’t bury their regulatory status in the fine print or hide behind “offshore” jurisdictions with zero oversight. More importantly, they provide proof that client funds are kept in segregated accounts. This ensures that if the broker goes bust, the money doesn’t go to their creditors—it stays with the trader. Without this level of openness, capital is essentially unprotected.
The Withdrawal Litmus Test
The ultimate test of a broker’s transparency is how they handle the exit. There are countless horror stories of traders growing an account only to find that “technical errors” or vague “bonus terms” prevent them from withdrawing their money. A legitimate broker has clear, public rules for getting funds out and doesn’t hide behind a wall of unreturned emails. If a platform makes it difficult to see the exit strategy, it’s a sign that the front door should have stayed closed.
Conclusion
In 2026, honesty is the most valuable feature a broker can offer. It is the foundation that allows a trader to focus on the charts instead of worrying if their stops are being hunted. Finding a partner with clear pricing, honest execution, and real regulation is the first trade that has to be won. Flashy marketing is easy to find, but transparency is what actually keeps a trader in the game for the long haul.
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn











