Connect with us

Feature/OPED

A Dangerous Concentration of Power: Is CBN’s Fixed Income Securities Takeover a Ticking Bomb for Nigeria’s Economy?

Published

on

Fixed Income Securities

By Blaise Udunze

The Central Bank of Nigeria’s decision to take full control of government securities issuance has been described by some as a bold move toward transparency and market efficiency. Yet, beneath the surface of this reform lies a web of structural dangers that could tighten credit even further, push interest rates higher, escalate exchange-rate instability, trigger regulatory turf wars, and strangulate the private sector, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that already struggle to survive in Nigeria’s high-cost economy.

The policy shift became more pronounced with the rollout of a new Treasury Bills (T-Bills) auction regime, mandating that all bids be submitted through the CBN’s S4 digital interface. This transition officially bypasses the longstanding Primary Dealer Market Maker (PDMM) framework and represents the clearest sign yet that the apex bank is asserting complete control over how government securities are issued, priced, and distributed. In fact, the first major test of this system will occur with the federal government’s planned N700 billion T-Bills issuance scheduled for November 20, 2025 which is an unprecedented rollout that effectively transfers auction power from market intermediaries directly to the CBN.

Analysts say this shift is not merely operational; it is structural. The S4 interface, which has existed since 2014 but never fully deployed as the primary submission platform, now becomes the exclusive gateway for government securities issuance. All bids, whether retail or institutional must be lodged through S4 between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., with the CBN maintaining full discretion to adjust the offer amount or reject bids it considers inconsistent with market conditions. Settlement will occur within 24 hours.

According to market expert Tajudeen Olayinka, CEO of Wyoming Capital Partners, the policy “is consistent with the CBN’s signal that it would take charge of the primary segment of the fixed-income market where government securities are issued.” Another veteran dealer put it more bluntly: “With S4, no dealer can see what rate others are quoting. All bids now meet at the same window. This dismantles the old advantage PDMMs enjoyed.”

Although transparency is improved by removing dealers’ visibility over competing bids, concerns have intensified over the broader consequences of the CBN monopolizing the government securities market. The danger is that this reform which is unaccompanied by strong institutional coordination between the CBN, the DMO, and the Ministry of Finance could trigger deeper systemic imbalances.

One of the most pressing fears is the crowding-out effect. If the CBN aggressively issues more government securities as part of its liquidity-management operations, banks, already heavily invested in government debt, will divert even more of their portfolios toward these risk-free instruments rather than lending to the real economy.

Nigeria’s top five banks known as the FUGAZ group (First HoldCo, UBA, GTCO, Access Corp, and Zenith Bank) provide compelling evidence of this shift. Their financial statements show a combined N49.152 trillion investment in securities and Treasury Bills as of September 2025, a sharp rise from N42.204 trillion at the end of 2024. In just nine months, they added nearly N7 trillion to these holdings.

Interest income from these investments surged by 33 percent, hitting N4.8 trillion in the first nine months of 2025 compared to N3.6 trillion in the same period of 2024.

–       Access Corporation led the pack with N15.25 trillion in securities holdings,

–       followed by UBA with N13.59 trillion,

–       Zenith at N9.05 trillion,

–       First HoldCo with N6.35 trillion, and

–       GTCO at N4.91 trillion.

These investments generated robust returns: Access earned N1.3 trillion; Zenith N1.14 trillion; UBA N1.03 trillion; FBN HoldCo N720 billion; and GTCO N570 billion.

For analysts, these numbers expose a structural vulnerability as Nigerian banks are quickly transforming into large-scale government lenders rather than engines of private-sector credit. As Dr. Muktar Mohammed of Lagos Business School explains, “Banks have found refuge in government instruments because they are safe, liquid, and yield high returns in a volatile economy, but this behaviour constrains credit growth to the real sector.”

Lending data confirms this.

–       Zenith Bank’s loan-to-deposit ratio slipped from 43 to 40 percent;

–       Access Corporation maintained a flat 41.2 percent despite rising deposits;

–       UBA’s ratio dropped to 28.2 percent;

–       GTCO’s remained stagnant; and only

–       First HoldCo showed notable improvement.

This trend is dangerous. Nigeria’s private sector, especially SMEs is already starved of credit. Lending rates hover between 28 percent and 35 percent, making capital unaffordable for most small businesses.

With the CBN taking full control of securities issuance, the likelihood is high that more liquidity will be absorbed through T-Bills and OMO bills, pushing interest rates further upward. The more attractive government securities become, the less incentive banks will have to lend to SMEs. This is how economies slide into cycles of low productivity, high unemployment, and weak domestic investment.

The implications do not end there. Excessive issuance of government securities could also destabilize the exchange rate. When interest rates remain artificially high to attract foreign portfolio investors into T-Bills, Nigeria becomes dependent on “hot money” which turns out to be short-term foreign inflows that exit the economy at the slightest shock. This pattern has historically triggered sharp naira depreciation, panic in the FX markets, and severe liquidity shortages in the banking sector. If the CBN uses this securities-controlled regime to sustain high yields, Nigeria risks attracting unstable capital inflows that will exit rapidly, putting pressure on the naira.

Beyond monetary and credit risks, there is a troubling regulatory dimension. The CBN’s move to migrate fixed-income trading and settlement from the FMDQ Securities Exchange, which is under SEC oversight to its own Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) and S4 platforms has ignited a full-blown turf war between the CBN and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under the Investments and Securities Act (ISA) 2025, the SEC holds exclusive authority over trading venues. Critics warn that the CBN’s attempt to operate exchange-like infrastructure violates statutory boundaries and risks destabilizing the market.

Dr. Akin Olaniyan, CEO of Charterhouse Limited, described the move as “a potential recipe for dual regulation and confusion,” arguing that it may undermine investor confidence. Similarly, Dr. Walker Ogogo, pioneer Registrar of the Institute of Capital Market Registrars, noted that since the CBN already owns 16 percent of FMDQ, operating parallel infrastructure creates conflicts of interest that send negative signals to foreign investors.

MoneyCentral reports that the migration could trigger a 67 percent drop in FMDQ’s trading volume, weakening a system that has long supported Nigeria’s fixed-income ecosystem.

Veteran banker Victor Ogiemwonyi stated, “the CBN is not an exchange; it should not be involved in issuing, dealing, and settling securities. Conflating these roles creates unnecessary risk.” His concerns are grounded in the principle that market operators must be independent from regulators to prevent conflicts of interest. The CBN’s dual role as both regulator and operator blurs these lines and may set a dangerous precedent.

The real casualties of these structural conflicts will be SMEs and the broader private sector. These enterprises rely on bank credit to fund inventory, acquire machinery, expand operations, and withstand economic shocks. When banks prefer government securities over lending,

–       SMEs face higher rates,

–       stricter collateral requirements,

–       fewer loan products, and shorter tenors.

–       Many will be forced to downsize, lay off workers, or close altogether.

In an economy where SMEs account for over 90% of jobs, this contraction would be disastrous.

Another major overarching risk is that:

–       The CBN’s consolidation of securities issuance power without corresponding checks from the DMO and Ministry of Finance creates an unbalanced financial architecture where monetary priorities overshadow fiscal realities and private-sector growth.

–       Policies crafted in silos rarely produce macroeconomic stability. They produce distortions, uncertainty, and systemic fragility.

Nigeria stands at a critical junction. Securities issuance can be made transparent without centralizing all power in the CBN. Fixed-income markets can be cleaned up without dismantling the institutional balance that preserves confidence. What the country needs is coordination, not consolidation; collaboration, not domination.

If the CBN continues its takeover without robust guardrails, the result may be a financial system where banks stop lending, SMEs continue to collapse, interest rates remain high, the naira stays volatile, and regulatory conflicts scare away both local and foreign investors.

To avoid the dangerous risks ahead, Nigeria must:

  1. Strengthen collaboration between CBN, DMO, and Ministry of Finance. Debt issuance must reflect both monetary and fiscal realities not just liquidity needs.
  1. Prioritize long-term bonds over short-term T-Bills. This reduces rollover risk and provides stable funding at lower long-term cost.
  1. Implement SME-focused credit interventions through private banks, not direct CBN lending. Monetary policy should not attempt to replace commercial banking.
  1. Reduce government’s domestic borrowing needs. This requires fiscal reforms, spending discipline, and revenue expansion not more debt.
  1. Protect private-sector credit allocation. Regulators should discourage excessive bank investment in government securities.

Without these safeguards, the economy risks tilting dangerously toward monetary domination and private-sector suffocation.

The gains of transparency cannot come at the cost of institutional imbalance. Nigeria’s economic recovery depends on a thriving private sector, not an expanding government debt market. The central bank must not become the single most powerful issuer, dealer, regulator, and judge in its own market. That path leads not to stability but to systemic risk, risk that Nigeria’s fragile economy can ill afford.

Meanwhile, it is important for CBN to provide clarity on the economic rationale behind this centralisation of power. The CBN must come forward to justify how this shift will tangibly benefit the economy, particularly in the areas most sensitive to credit availability, financial stability and stability for Nigeria’s broader economy.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional writes from Lagos, 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