Connect with us

Feature/OPED

Banks’ Funding Failure: The Shocking Rot In Nigeria’s Intervention Programmes

Published

on

Banks Funding Failure NDIC, CBN

By Blaise Udunze

For over a decade, the Nigerian government and its financial institutions have launched a flurry of intervention funds, all with the promise to empower industries, revive the manufacturing sector, and lift millions of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) out of financial drought. From agriculture to aviation, from creative industries to export promotion, these funds were designed as catalysts for inclusive growth and job creation.

But today, the story reads like a tragic irony. Trillions of naira later, there is little impact to show. Factories remain underutilized, MSMEs struggle to survive, and unemployment continues to soar. The rot runs deeply entrenched corruption, politicization, poor monitoring, and widespread loan defaults have turned what should have been Nigeria’s economic lifeline into a cautionary tale of mismanagement and missed opportunities.

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Bank of Industry (BOI) have, over the years, spearheaded multiple intervention programmes. In 2013, the N220 billion MSME Development Fund (MSMEDF) was launched to empower small businesses, with a special 60 percent allocation for women. Yet, more than a decade later, thousands of genuine entrepreneurs say they never accessed the fund, while others question the transparency of disbursement. The Anchor Borrowers’ Programme (ABP), launched in 2015, aimed to link smallholder farmers to processors and was hailed as a masterstroke for agricultural self-sufficiency. Over N1 trillion reportedly flowed into the scheme. But the dream soon dimmed with ghost beneficiaries, political interference, and poor loan recovery exposed a programme riddled with abuse.

Similarly, the Agri-Business/Small and Medium Enterprises Investment Scheme (AGSMEIS), a CBN-backed initiative pooling five percent of banks’ profit after tax, began as a noble effort to stimulate SMEs. However, its later years were marred by disbursement bottlenecks and allegations of insider favoritism. Commercial banks and some designated financial institutions, instead of acting as facilitators, became gatekeepers of corruption. Bribes, favoritism, and endless paperwork became the norm. Funds meant for productive ventures were sometimes redirected to political allies or misapplied by the very institutions entrusted with disbursement.

Rather than empowering Nigeria’s real economy, intervention loans too often empowered a network of insiders who saw the programmes as avenues for rent-seeking. The impenetrability of these schemes made them convenient channels for political reward and institutional looting. Once the funds leave government coffers, tracking them becomes an exercise in futility. There are no reliable public databases showing who got what, how much was repaid, or what impact was achieved.

The rot is not confined to agriculture. The Creative Industry Financing Initiative (CIFI), launched in 2019 to nurture Nigeria’s entertainment and digital sectors, became mired in controversy over opaque selection and limited reach. The Real Sector Support Facility (RSSF) and the Textile Sector Intervention Fund, meant to boost manufacturing and revive the textile industry, also suffered from weak monitoring and low repayment discipline. During the pandemic, the N400 billion COVID-19 Targeted Credit Facility (TCF) was touted as a lifeline for households and small firms. Administered by NIRSAL Microfinance Bank, it sparked hope among struggling entrepreneurs, but soon, the familiar patterns emerged as connected elites got the funds, while genuine applicants were locked out.

Official data reveals that the CBN has disbursed over N10.3 trillion across various interventions in less than a decade with an unprecedented scale of funding. When combined with BOI-managed programmes such as the Government Enterprise and Empowerment Programme (GEEP) and the Export Expansion Facility Programme (EEFP), total earmarked intervention funds likely exceed N12 trillion. Yet, Nigeria’s industrial contribution to GDP remains below 10 percent, and MSMEs with the supposed beneficiaries continue to struggle with high costs, poor infrastructure, and limited credit access.

Over the years, numerous intervention funds have been launched to support industries and MSMEs from the N220 billion MSME Development Fund and N300 billion Real Sector Support Facility to the N200 billion SME Restructuring and Refinancing Fund. However, poor administration, corruption, and diversion have undermined these initiatives. A 2023 report by the Auditor-General revealed that billions of naira from these schemes were either unaccounted for or misapplied, with funds channeled through commercial banks that prioritized profit over impact.

For instance, the CBN’s N220 billion MSME Development Fund has only seen about N83 billion disbursed over seven years. The Survival Fund, though lauded in principle, has delivered roughly N67.5 billion to over 1.25 million beneficiaries, including cases where mobilisation fees were collected but goods or services never followed. An N5 billion SME loan fund through SMEDAN and Sterling Bank saw only N250 million actually reach business owners. Even in interventions like BOI’s N75 billion Manufacturing Sector Fund, less than a third had been disbursed to manufacturers, with many applications still awaiting approval. These examples speak not to scarcity of funds, but to failures in administration, accountability, and access.

The cost of Nigeria’s failed intervention programmes goes beyond wasted billions; it has crippled the very sectors they were designed to rescue. Thousands of promising small businesses are left stranded without access to affordable credit, while manufacturers continue to struggle with obsolete equipment, erratic power supply, and prohibitive interest rates. Instead of catalyzing growth, these funds have deepened dependency, encouraged corruption, and distorted the credit market.

The result is a stunted industrial base, where innovation and expansion are sacrificed on the altar of bureaucracy and greed. Many entrepreneurs who could have scaled production or entered export markets have shut down under the weight of unmet promises. Jobs that could have been created remain mere statistics in policy documents, while Nigeria’s ambition to diversify its economy beyond oil continues to falter.

In the ongoing investigation into the Central Bank of Nigeria’s activities, news reports have uncovered that scrutiny may extend to Chief Executive Officers and senior management personnel of various banks. The investigation seeks to examine potential discrepancies related to the management of intervention funds by deposit money banks. This revelation follows reports that the CBN might be compelled to withdraw its released audited annual financial reports after investigators uncovered irregularities and inconsistencies.

This unfolding probe, led by Special Investigator Jim Obazee, who was appointed by President Bola Tinubu in July 2023 as this mark one of the most comprehensive financial examinations in Nigeria’s history. Obazee’s mandate extends beyond the CBN to include other Government Business Entities (GBEs), with the goal of plugging financial leaks and holding corrupt individuals accountable. According to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, George Akume, the forthcoming audit report will shed light on governance failures that have long crippled Nigeria’s financial system.

One key revelation involves intervention funds totaling N1.27 trillion reportedly held in the accounts of five major banks: Access Bank, Fidelity Bank, Guaranty Trust Bank, United Bank for Africa, and Zenith Bank. These funds cover various CBN lending schemes, including the Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme, Real Sector Support Facility, and state bailouts. Access Bank alone held about N530 billion in intervention funds, while Fidelity Bank retained roughly N310 billion.

Several banks have also been found to hold undisbursed funds from the CBN earmarked for programmes like the Anchor Borrowers’ Scheme and the Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme. As of June 2023, Guaranty Trust Holding Company, Wema Bank, and Sterling Financial Holdings collectively held N114 billion in Anchor Borrowers’ funds, while seven banks, including UBA, Access, Zenith, and Fidelity, retained N94 billion from the agriculture credit scheme.

As the investigation progresses, bank executives were expected to be summoned for questioning. The revelations underscore the depth of systemic dysfunction, where funds meant for development sit idle or are diverted, while small businesses gasp for credit.

Amid the turbulence, the newly appointed CBN Governor Olayemi Cardoso called for a radical shift in the bank’s role. During his Senate screening, he emphasized the need to refocus the CBN on its core mandate of monetary stability rather than direct development finance. Cardoso warned that the CBN’s historical foray into fiscal interventions had blurred institutional boundaries and undermined credibility. His plan is to transition the bank toward a more limited advisory role, one that supports economic growth without entangling itself in politically driven lending.

This reorientation is timely. As of October 2022, nearly 10 trillion had already been disbursed as intervention funds, much of it tied to agriculture and small business support. Yet controversies over beneficiary selection, repayment defaults, and limited impact persist. Experts have urged a full-scale audit and restructuring of these programmes, recommending that future interventions be channeled through relevant ministries and agencies, not the CBN to ensure proper oversight and impact measurement.

Before the next bailout or recovery initiative is launched, both the CBN and BOI must clean house. This means full public disclosure of all beneficiaries, proper audits of past disbursements, and the recovery of misapplied or stolen funds. The impenetrability that has shielded corruption for years must give way to transparency, backed by digital tracking systems and citizen oversight.

Beyond cleansing their books, these institutions must also rethink their approach. Development finance should no longer be routed through rent-seeking commercial banks that profit without producing impact. Instead, direct digital lending platforms, strict eligibility verification, and measurable impact tracking should define the new model.

Nigeria’s intervention programmes must undergo radical reform anchored on transparency, technology, and traceability. Every fund should have a publicly accessible portal listing disbursements, beneficiaries, and repayment status. Periodic audits that are independently verified must be mandatory, not optional. Beyond financial engineering, Nigeria must fix the enabling environment for consistent power supply, logistics, security, and regulatory stability that makes business growth possible.

The shocking rot in Nigeria’s intervention programmes is not just a financial scandal; it is a betrayal of national trust. Trillions have been poured into schemes that promised jobs and prosperity, yet delivered little beyond paperwork and propaganda. Unless Nigeria cleans up the system, enforcing accountability and rewarding genuine productivity, its intervention funds will continue to fund failure, not progress.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional writes from Lagos, can be reached via: [email protected]

Feature/OPED

AI and Cybercrime in Nigeria: Can Weak Laws Support Strong Technology?

Published

on

AI Cybercrime in Nigeria

By Nafisat Damisa

Introduction

The proliferation of generative AI has transformed Nigeria’s cybercrime landscape, enabling deepfake fraud, automated social engineering, and AI-enhanced phishing at scale. In early 2024, scammers using AI-generated deepfake videos impersonating a company’s CFO defrauded a Hong Kong finance worker of $25.6 million. As similar threats emerge in Nigeria’s fintech sector, this article examines whether the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (as amended 2024) is legally adequate, or whether Nigeria’s evidentiary and accountability frameworks are too weak to support effective prosecution of AI-driven cybercrime

Current Legal Landscape
Nigeria’s primary legal framework on preventing cybercrime is the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, amended in 2024 to address cryptocurrency transactions, cyberbullying and various forms of digital misconduct. Complementary frameworks include the National Information Technology Development Agency Act 2007, the Nigerian Data Protection Act 2023, and sectoral regulations such as the CBN’s Risk-Based Cybersecurity Framework. However, the majority of these frameworks were issued far before now, and emerging risks like AI-driven threats are not really being addressed. The Act nowhere mentions “artificial intelligence,” “algorithm,” or “autonomous system.” Notably, the National Artificial Intelligence Commission (Establishment) Bill, 2025, is currently pending before the Senate. If passed, it would establish a dedicated commission to coordinate AI strategy, research, and ethical deployment. However, the Bill in its present form focuses primarily on development and innovation promotion, with limited provisions on criminal liability, evidence handling, or enforcement against AI-facilitated cybercrime, leaving the core accountability and evidentiary gaps largely unaddressed.

AI as a Double-Edged Sword
AI paradoxically enables both defence and attack. Nigerian financial institutions deploy AI for real-time fraud detection and pattern recognition. Conversely, cybercriminals exploit generative AI for deepfake creation, automated credential stuffing, and convincing phishing tailored to Nigerian English and Pidgin. The same technology that powers fraud detection systems can be weaponised to evade them. Take justice delivery as an example, the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended 2023) admits computer-generated evidence under Section 84, but remains silent on AI’s capacity to seamlessly generate or alter electronic records, creating “doctored AI-generated evidence”.  These and many more issues await Nigeria’s digital space in the coming years.

The Legal Gaps

There are multiple critical gaps that undermine AI governance.  For this article, three are considered.  First, no framework attributes criminal liability when an autonomous AI commits an offence. The question of whether the developer, user, or owner should bear criminal responsibility for the acts of an autonomous system remains entirely unanswered under Nigerian law, leaving prosecutors without a clear legal theory of culpability.

Second, Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 governs computer-generated evidence but does not address AI-generated outputs. The Act’s definition of “computer” excludes AI’s cognitive processing capabilities, creating a statutory blind spot where evidence produced by generative or autonomous systems falls outside the existing admissibility framework.

Third, Nigeria lacks any framework for mandatory AI-generated content labelling, impeding deepfake traceability. Computer-generated evidence under Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 remains admissible if unchallenged at trial, a dangerous precedent for AI evidence, as opposing parties may lack the technical capacity to mount any challenge at all.

Comparative Jurisdictions: Rich Laws, Tangible Results

Jurisdictions with advanced AI laws demonstrate clear outcomes. The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) mandates transparency obligations, requiring synthetic content labelling and informing individuals when interacting with AI systems; non-compliance triggers significant penalties. The US Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 is a proposed Act that will require impact assessments for high-risk AI systems in housing, credit, and employment, with FTC enforcement and a public repository.  China implemented mandatory measures for the Identification of AI-generated (Synthetic) content. These rules, mandated by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and others, require explicit (visible labels) and implicit (watermarks/metadata) identification for all AI-generated text, images, audio, video, and virtual scenes to ensure transparency, traceability, and combat disinformation. These laws contribute to measurable results: forensic traceability, expedited prosecution of deepfake fraud, and clear liability chains. Nigeria has none of these.

Hope or Illusion?

Without legislative intervention, AI’s promise against cybercrime remains an illusion. Nigeria requires the following to boost its hope:

  1. Amendment of the Cybercrimes Act to include AI-specific offences and mandatory content provenance standards;
  2. Revision of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 to address AI-generated evidence credibility, not merely admissibility;
  3. Investment in digital forensic capabilities is currently hampered by inadequate enforcement, weak forensic capabilities, and a lack of specialised personnel; and
  4. A risk-based framework drawing from EU and US models.
  5. Review of both secondary and tertiary education curricula to address the knowledge gap in AI and prepare the next generation for the AI-driven future.

Conclusion

AI can help curb cybercrime in Nigeria, but only if legal capacity catches up with technical capability. The Cybercrimes Act 2024 amendments were a step forward, but they did not address AI accountability, algorithmic transparency, or evidentiary credibility. The pending National Artificial Intelligence Commission Bill, 2025, signals legislative awareness, but without substantive provisions on liability, evidence, and enforcement, it cannot fill the existing gaps. The effectiveness of existing frameworks remains a question. An optimistic but cautious path exists, but until Nigeria enacts AI-specific legislation, whether through amending the Cybercrimes Act, revising the Evidence Act, or strengthening the pending Bill, weak laws will remain unable to support strong technology.

Nafisat Damisa is a Legal Research Associate in Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Nafisat via: [email protected] or [email protected]

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Before Oil Hits $150: A Warning Nigeria Cannot Ignore

Published

on

OPEC Global Oil Demand

By Isah Kamisu Madachi

As of April 30, 2026, the crude price is said to have reached $125 in the global market. The all-time high price per barrel was recorded in 2008, when it surged to $147. It is obvious that the price is heading in that direction or even towards what experts have predicted — crude reaching a new all-time high of $150 in the near future if crude passages remain closed in the Middle East, which would ultimately come with several disproportionate challenges for businesses and households.

In Nigeria, what began as a mild adjustment in the price of gasoline and other refined crude products has not stopped anywhere until it reached N1,400 per litre of petrol at filling stations. When the price was surging, experts in energy, economics, marketing, business and other relevant fields tried to come up with explanations for how Nigeria, despite housing the largest petrochemicals refinery in Africa and being one of the largest oil-exporting countries on the continent, would continue to absorb this shock.

Despite our advantages, Nigeria recorded the world’s second-highest surge in petrol prices following the escalating geopolitical tension in the Middle East. In Africa, Nigeria has the highest spike, with many sources citing it at 39.5% and above. Even non-oil-producing countries in Africa, and countries that do not refine a drop of oil, did not experience this surge. Also, African countries like South Africa at 1%, Morocco at 2.1%, and Tanzania at 2.7% experienced far smaller increases that are nowhere near Nigeria’s.

To put it in context, South Korea, Japan, and China are among the foremost dependents on the Strait of Hormuz, whose closure escalated the crude price, but none of these countries has recorded even a 20% increase in their petrol prices. Nigeria does not import its crude through the Strait of Hormuz. Yet, as an oil-exporting nation, we have suffered some of the sharpest petrol price increases in Africa.

What went wrong in Nigeria to warrant this surge is not the primary focus of this piece. What lies ahead is. As a result of the increase in petrol prices, Nigerians have been disproportionately affected. Life has become unbearably difficult, with sharp increases in transportation costs, rising food prices, and higher costs of goods and services. Even charging points that used to collect N150 for charging a phone or battery now charge N300 or more.

As it stands, the gap between the current crude price and the predicted new all-time high is about $25. This means that if the passages continue to remain closed, we are not far from another historic price peak. It is even said that reopening the passages may not immediately stabilise prices, as crude tankers would still take time to reach their destinations.

What this means for Nigeria is another sharp increase in refined petroleum product prices, which could trigger another wave of stagflation. Already struggling, Nigerians do not deserve this. They are only just adapting to the post-subsidy era, yet are being hit again by another round of global geopolitical tensions. Many are already in deep energy poverty, with businesses struggling due to unstable electricity supply.

Therefore, as crude oil prices hover above $125 per barrel and threaten to reach the predicted $150 if disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz persist, Nigeria must act decisively to shield its citizens. The Dangote Refinery exists. Nigeria refines oil. What the federal government owes Nigerians at this point is a deliberate policy decision to make that the refinery serve domestic needs first, with pricing that does not mirror whatever is happening in the global market. That is not complicated; other oil-producing countries do exactly this.

The NMDPRA has the authority to act on this. The question is whether there is a political will to act before another price wave hits and Nigerians are once again left to absorb what their counterparts elsewhere never have to.

Sub-national governments also have something to do. Commercial motorcyclists and small business owners are the people who feel every petrol price increase the hardest and the fastest. Pushing CNG and LPG adoption among this group beyond the FCT and Lagos, with genuine support, would cushion a significant part of the next shock. Expanding solar access in underserved communities would do the same. A shop owner running on solar is not at the mercy of the next diesel price spike.

These solutions are quite feasible. Nigeria has attempted versions of them before. Where we often seem to get it wrong is in execution, and Nigeria has to treat this with the same urgency and seriousness as given to elections, for the well-being of its citizens. The only thing that has never matched the problem is the seriousness of the response.

Isah Kamisu Madachi is a policy analyst and development practitioner. He writes via [email protected]

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

A Simple Guide to Obtaining Pension Clearance Certificate in Nigeria

Published

on

Pension Clearance Certificate

By Gbolahan Oluyemi

In 2025, the National Pension Commission (PenCom) directed all Licensed Pension Fund Operators (LPFOs) to demand a Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC) from service providers before engaging their services. This new policy typically affects various types of entities, including small and medium-scale enterprises, most of which are not usually compliance-driven. Following this directive, the PCC has become an essential compliance document for both large, medium and small-scale firms. This article provides a guide on what a PCC is, why it matters, and how it can be obtained.

What is a Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC)?

A Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC) is an official document issued by PenCom confirming that an organisation has complied with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act. It is an annual document that must be renewed every year at no cost.  The yearly renewal is intended to ensure that organisations treat compliance as a continuous activity rather than a one-off act.

Why is a PCC Important?

The PCC is important because it demonstrates that an organisation is compliant with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, especially as it relates to employee pension contributions under Section 4 (1) of the Pension Reform Act and subscription to group life insurance under Section 4 (5) of the Pension Reform Act. It is also required for certain transactions, such as government contracts and engagements with compliance-sensitive partners. In essence, a PCC assures investors, partners, and clients that your business is properly structured and compliant with regulatory requirements.

Who Needs a Pension Clearance Certificate?

Under Nigerian law, companies with three or more employees are required to participate in the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS). If your organisation employs at least three staff members and provides or intends to provide services to Licensed Pension Fund Operators (LPFOs) or other regulated entities, you are expected to obtain a PCC annually.

How Do I Obtain a PCC?

PenCom issues the PCC electronically and at no cost through its web portal: https://pcc.pencom.gov.ng/.  Please note that Applicants who are just beginning compliance and remitting employees’ pensions are required to first obtain an employer code from a Pension Fund Administrator (PFA). This code is necessary to initiate the PCC application on the PenCom portal.

Upon logging into the portal, you will be required to complete your company profile by providing your date of incorporation, contact details, and website (if applicable), as well as uploading your CAC documents.

Next, you will upload an Excel schedule (using the template provided on the website) containing your employee list. After this, you will be required to upload Excel sheets detailing pension contributions. You will also need to upload your organisation’s group life insurance documentation and payment instrument.

Finally, you will review your application and submit it for further processing by PenCom. Before commencing an application, ensure you have the following:

  1. Certificate of Incorporation (CAC documents)
  2. Group Life Insurance Policy for employees
  3. Evidence of Pension Fund Administrator (PFA) registration for employees
  4. Three years’ proof of monthly pension remittances, including penalties for any defaults (where applicable). For companies less than three years old, provide proof of remittances from the date of incorporation
  5. A valid Tax Identification Number (TIN)
  6. An employee schedule showing staff details and contributions (usually in Excel format) Templates are available on the PenCom portal

Also note that for the portal to accept employee details and remittance records, employees must have completed their data capture with their respective Pension Fund Administrator and updated their records to reflect their current employer.

Conclusion

Obtaining a Pension Clearance Certificate in Nigeria may seem technical at first, but once proper processes are established, it becomes routine. The key is consistency in remittance, maintenance of accurate records and prioritisation of compliance in overall operations.

For many Nigerian businesses, the PCC is more than a regulatory requirement; it is a mark of credibility. In a competitive environment, that credibility can make all the difference.

Gbolahan Oluyemi is a Legal Practitioner and currently leads Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Gbolahan via: [email protected] or [email protected]

Continue Reading

Trending