Feature/OPED
BRICS Mapping De-dollarization for Emerging New World
By Professor Maurice Okoli
For the five BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) members, de-dollarization has become the latest common buzzword in English. Long before the highly-praised Johannesburg’s 15th BRICS summit, considered a very important step forward on the way to deepening interaction in the sphere of trade and investment with the nations of Global South, all the five BRICS leaders have made it their priority task to find their common currency so as not to depend on the United States dollar in the emerging new world.
Understandably, the primary reason is further delineating from United States hegemony and global dominance. In fact, the BRICS desire to facilitate global de-escalation, assist each other in solving issues concerning mutual interests and, in future, transact businesses in what they now popularly refer to as BRICS common currency. This question is already enshrined in the final comprehensive document that sets forth the general guidelines and principles of the association after the historic August 22-24 meeting held in South Africa.
South Africa was the summit host. Chinese and Brazilian presidents, the Indian Prime Minister, the Russian Foreign Minister, and leaders and representatives from some 50 other countries are in attendance. On August 22, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the BRICS business forum, among several significant issues highlighted the accelerating momentum of de-dollarization.
In a virtual address, Putin also criticized the sanctions policy of Western states, saying such practice is seriously affecting the international economic situation. He said the unlawful freezing of assets of sovereign states constitutes a violation of free trade and economic cooperation rules.
Putin said that efforts were in progress to create an international reserve currency based on a basket of currencies of the association’s member countries. Some experts believe such a currency may protect the BRICS countries from sanction risks associated with settlements in dollars and euros.
The objective and irreversible process of de-dollarizing the economic ties is gaining pace. Russia has been working hard to fine-tune effective mechanisms for mutual settlements and monetary and financial control. As a result, the share of the US dollar in export and import operations within BRICS is declining: last year, it stood at only 28.7 per cent, according to the Russian leader.
Russia has always advocated for switching trade between member countries away from the U.S. dollar and into national currencies, a process in which the BRICS New Development Bank would play a big role. “The objective, irreversible process of de-dollarizing our economic ties is gaining momentum,” he said.
He also urged BRICS to increase its role in the international monetary system and expand the use of national currencies. Noticeably, Russia, being one of the founding patrons of BRICS, acts as a unifying force behind and in the organization and largely determines that its role is strengthened for the future.
President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, attended the BRICS Summit, for the third time, held in South Africa. The distinctive difference is that at this 2023 summit, the world has entered a new period of turbulence and rapid transformation.
“We gather at a crucial time to build on our past achievements and open up a new future for BRICS cooperation. We should deepen business and financial cooperation to boost economic growth.,” he emphasized. “We need to leverage the role of the New Development Bank fully, push forward reform of the international financial and monetary systems, and increase the representation and voice of developing countries.”
An English version of the article by Chinese President Xi Jinping titled “Sailing the Giant Ship of China-South Africa Friendship and Cooperation Toward Greater Success” widely published ahead of the 15th BRICS Summit in South African media, including The Star, Cape Times, The Mercury as well as Independent Online, also underlined the practical concept of multilateralism and push for the building of a more just and equitable international order.
South African companies are also racing to invest in the Chinese market to seize the abundant business opportunities, and they have made important contributions to China’s economic growth. The China-South Africa relationship is standing at a new historical starting point. It has gone beyond the bilateral scope and carries increasingly important global influence.
China and South Africa should be fellow companions sharing the same ideals. As an ancient Chinese saying goes, “A partnership forged with the right approach defies distance; it is thicker than glue and stronger than metal and rock.” Therefore, there is a need to increase experience sharing on governance and firmly support each other in exploring a path to modernization that suits both national conditions.
“We should fear no hegemony and work with each other as real partners to push forward relations amid the changing international landscape. In the face of the profound changes unseen in a century, a strong China-Africa relationship will provide more fresh impetus to global development and ensure greater stability. Looking ahead into the next 25 years,” he wrote in the article.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also underlined the current significance of BRICS in dealing with the world’s tensions and disputes, but most importantly, de-dollarization amid economic challenges. “In 2009, when the first BRICS summit was held, the world was just coming out of a massive financial crisis. At that time, BRICS emerged as a ray of hope for the global economy. In the present times, to shape strategies for economic cooperation, in particular ways of increasing trade settlements in local currencies and BRICS expansion.”
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva believes the world will see massive changes in the coming years. “When we talk about Brazil and BRICS, we show that it is possible to create a new world. We don’t want to argue with anyone. We want integration between continents and equal conditions for all,” Lula da Silva said.
According to him, establishing partnerships between private sectors is a very relevant dimension of BRICS that gives life and continuity to the relations between the countries; participation in the global economy has been expanding since the first Summit of Heads of State and Government. “We have already surpassed the G7 and now account for 32% of the world GDP in purchasing power parity. Projections indicate that emerging and developing markets will present the highest growth rates in the coming years,” he explained in his speech.
According to the IMF, while growth in industrialized countries is expected to drop from 2.7% in 2022 to 1.4% in 2024, the expected growth for developing countries is 4% this year and the next. This shows that the economy’s dynamism is in the Global South – and BRICS is its driving force. Brazil’s total trade with BRICS increased from US$48 billion in 2009 to US$178 billion in 2022 – a 370% growth since the group was created.
Brazil’s BRICS Direct Foreign Investment stock increased 167% between 2012 and 2021, reaching 34.2 billion dollars. Today, almost 400 companies from the bloc operate in Brazil. The decision to establish the New Development Bank was a milestone in effective collaboration among emerging economies. The joint bank must be a global leader in financing projects that address the most pressing challenges.
In arguing, the president pointed to the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) as a way to offer its financing alternatives suited to the needs of developing countries. “The creation of a currency for trade and investment transactions between BRICS members increases our payment options and reduces our vulnerabilities”, he said, reinforcing that developing countries need an international financial system that helps implement structural changes instead of feeding inequalities.
By diversifying payment sources in local currencies and expanding its network of partners and members, the NDB is a strategic platform to promote cooperation among developing countries. In this strategy, engagement with the African Development Bank will be central. At the multilateral level, BRICS stands out as a force favouring a fairer, more predictable, and equitable global trade. As of December, Brazil will occupy the presidency of the G20. The presence of three BRICS members in the G20 Troika will be a great opportunity for us to advance issues of interest to the Global South.
Reading through various reports, Peter Koenig, a geopolitical analyst and also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University in Beijing and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank, convincingly argues that many see the BRICS as the salvation from the West, from sanctions, from the dollar impositions, from debt enslavement – from trading restrictions… from outright theft of their currency reserves in foreign countries.
As a byline to the all too frequent western theft of reserve funds and gold…! But is this the purpose of the BRICS – providing shelter from the last onslaught of the West, led by the United States and her vassals – the Europeans? And is it right – that some of the BRICS leaders are constantly vacillating between the US and the BRICS solid core – China and Russia? Modi, for example, seems to be leaning towards whatever camp – West or East – he feels gives him more advantages.
Koenig further explained that many BRICS countries still depend on the US dollar as the bulk of their reserve currency, the main trade currency. De-dollarization for many is not happening overnight. Therefore, a common strategy is needed. To begin with and to avoid the dollar – trading among BRICS members (and even outside BRICS) with local currencies instead of dollars. This is relatively easy; for example, China and Argentina have done it for a long time. In the short-to-medium term – what might help and may become a necessity is having a common BRICS Trading Currency.
There has been a gradual shift away from trading in US dollars, and instead, countries adopted trading in their local currencies or in a currency of common use by trading partners, for example, the Chinese Yuan. Latin America – especially Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela – consistently uses local currencies or the Chinese Yuan to avoid the dollar. Avoiding the dollar is foremost for its protection from US sanctions. Increasingly, more countries will use this new trading mode – equitable and peaceful.
The Turkish edition Dunya notes that since the United States imposed financial sanctions on Russia last year, de-dollarization has gained momentum. The BRICS countries forced transactions using non-dollar currencies. After the start of the Ukrainian conflict, Russia, Iran, Brazil, Argentina, and Bangladesh went for broke against the United States, using the Chinese yuan instead of the dollar in trade.
Four Reasons for De-dollarization:
— Over-reliance on a single currency, changes in US monetary policy, and possible US sanctions or restrictions carry risks. In addition, the US government has run a large budget deficit for many years. And this raises concerns about inflation and the value of the dollar.
— The United States has been involved in many geopolitical conflicts in recent years, primarily the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These conflicts have resulted in heightened tensions between the US and other countries, making some states less willing to use the dollar.
— China, the world’s second-largest economy and an increasingly influential player in world trade is encouraging the use of its currency as an alternative to the dollar.
— Cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, which are not subject to government control, have become attractive to those looking for an alternative to the dollar.
There are so many arguments and discussions about the question of global currency. But one more interesting analytical conclusion is here. Michael G. Plummer, Director at SAIS Europe and Eni Professor of International Economics at Johns Hopkins University, believes the global system gains from having an internationally accepted currency like the US dollar as a medium of exchange, unit of account and store of value. But its role will diminish at the margin at a rate that will be the function of exogenous factors, such as changes in the international marketplace, and endogenous factors, such as how the United States faces its financial and trade challenges.
As widely seen across the world, the BRICS bloc is rapidly gathering stronger momentum for a more democratic and multipolar world order that respects the sovereignty, equality, and diversity of all nations. The United States and Western allies often deeply underestimate its future growth and role on the global stage but have heightened interests in shaping its instruments, such as the BRICS Bank, which is likened to IMF and the World Bank, becoming the alternative organization, especially for the Global South.
Notwithstanding all the arguments, views and observations, Russia, isolated by the United States and Europe over its invasion of Ukraine, is keen to show Western powers it still has friends. In contrast, Brazil and India have forged closer ties with the West. There are still justifiable arguments, though, that the group’s members have long been thwarted by some internal divisions and, to some extent, a lack of coherent vision.
In Johannesburg, BRICS, under the 2023 chairship of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, has achieved an appreciable milestone. As stipulated in the 10-point joint declaration, BRICS will continue, through its collective efforts, working steadily towards shaping an alternative new system across the ASEAN, Africa and Trans-Atlantic. BRICS, with an additional six members, is now home to more than 40% of the world’s population and more than a quarter of global GDP, the bloc’s ambitions of becoming a global political and economic player. As the new Chair, Russia will hold the next BRICS summit in Kazan in October 2024.
Professor Maurice Okoli is a fellow at the Institute for African Studies and the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences. He is also a fellow at the North-Eastern Federal University of Russia. He is an expert at the Roscongress Foundation and the Valdai Discussion Club.
As an academic researcher and economist with a keen interest in current geopolitical changes and the emerging world order, Maurice Okoli frequently contributes articles for publication in reputable media portals on different aspects of the interconnection between developing and developed countries, particularly in Asia, Africa and Europe. With comments and suggestions, he can be reached via email markolconsult(at)gmail(dot)com
Feature/OPED
$40bn Net Reserves, Record Wealth, Relentless Poverty: Who Is Nigeria’s Economy Serving Today?
By Blaise Udunze
No doubt, it was a welcome announcement that Nigeria’s net foreign exchange (FX) reserves have surged by an astonishing 1,233 per cent from about $3 billion to over $40 billion. This would ordinarily be the kind of economic milestone that inspires optimism, coupled with gross external reserves of about $52.52 billion, which are sufficient to finance roughly 11 months of imports of goods and services. Penultimate week, the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Olayemi Cardoso, presented the development at the end of the 306th meeting of the apex bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) as evidence that its reforms are working.
It is no surprise that around the same period, one would say that another important economic event occurred with the government sharing more money than ever before with the federal, state, and local governments, as the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) distributed a record N2.55 trillion, representing an increase of N250 billion over the N2.3 trillion shared in the preceding month.
Of course, the official figures are impressive numbers. Yes, anyone would conclude that the economy is becoming stronger, more stable and better positioned for growth. While this suggests stronger public finances, it also raises the question of whether these larger allocations are producing tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary Nigerians. More interesting is that another set of figures tells a completely different story.
According to the World Bank’s newly approved Country Partnership Framework for Nigeria, 61 per cent of Nigerians now live below the poverty line, while about 79 per cent are either poor or vulnerable to falling into poverty. More than 139 million Nigerians live below the poverty line. Over 86 million people lack access to electricity, while millions of young Nigerians enter the labour market every year with little prospect of decent employment.
The contradiction could not be starker. If reserves are rising, government revenues are increasing, and governments at all levels are receiving record allocations, why are the lives of ordinary Nigerians becoming more difficult?
This is the question policymakers must answer not with statistics, but with tangible improvements in the lives of citizens. If government agencies engineering these figures must know, these are not merely economic statistics; they are the lived realities by which citizens judge any government.
Foreign exchange reserves are not an economic trophy. They are a means to an end. Strong reserves are expected to stabilise the currency, reassure investors, strengthen the country’s ability to withstand external shocks and create an enabling environment for investment, production and employment.
But reserves alone do not feed families nor would they reduce their housing rents. They do not lower transport fares. They do not reduce school fees. They do not make healthcare affordable. Nor do they automatically create jobs.
Ultimately, this is to say that the success of macroeconomic reforms must be measured not by the strength of the CBN’s balance sheet but by the wellbeing of the Nigerian people.
Historically, unlike our dear country, countries that consistently build substantial foreign exchange reserves do so on the back of strong economic fundamentals. The fact is that they maintain sustained trade surpluses, export diversified products, attract large volumes of long-term foreign direct investment (FDI), develop globally competitive manufacturing industries and continuously improve productivity.
Nigeria, unfortunately, still struggles on nearly all these fronts. The country’s export earnings remain overwhelmingly dependent on crude oil. Non-oil exports remain relatively insignificant. Value-added manufacturing exports are weak. Another area that raises concern is agriculture, which continues to export mostly raw commodities rather than higher-value processed products despite being known previously as the country’s mainstay. With all these so-called developments, Nigeria still imports refined petroleum products, machinery, pharmaceuticals, industrial inputs and even food that could be produced locally.
This naturally raises an uncomfortable but legitimate question that requires an answer. Yes, it would be necessary to ask: How exactly has Nigeria grown and accumulated over $40 billion in net foreign exchange reserves without the structural fundamentals that typically support such reserve growth?
The apex bank has continued to credit exchange-rate reforms, improved transparency, stronger investor confidence and increased diaspora remittances. Well, it would be said that these achievements deserve recognition.
However, they do not completely explain the scale or, more importantly, the sustainability of the reserve accumulation.
Nigeria has not consistently recorded the large trade surpluses associated with countries that rapidly accumulate reserves. Oil production remains below historical capacity. Export diversification remains limited. Ease of doing business continues to be constrained by multiple taxation, infrastructure deficits, insecurity, policy uncertainty, logistics bottlenecks and unreliable electricity.
Without addressing these structural deficiencies, reserve accumulation risks becoming more financial than productive.
Equally important is the question of foreign direct investment. Governor Cardoso has argued that improved macroeconomic stability is attracting foreign investors. That may well be true. But confidence alone does not build factories.
The real question is how much fresh FDI has actually entered Nigeria’s productive sectors? How much has gone into manufacturing? How much into agro-processing? How much into export-oriented industries capable of generating sustainable foreign exchange earnings and creating jobs?
If reserve growth is being driven largely by short-term portfolio investments attracted by high interest rates rather than long-term productive investment, then Nigeria remains vulnerable. Portfolio investors can exit as quickly as they entered whenever global financial conditions change.
The unarguable fact is that foreign direct investment, by contrast, creates factories, expands production, develops supply chains and creates lasting employment. Nigeria desperately needs more of the latter.
The CBN also points to diaspora remittances as a growing source of reserve accumulation, projecting inflows of approximately $1 billion every month before the end of the year. Again, this is encouraging.
Again, the country will not be tired of asking questions because several of these questions deserve closer examination. How much of these remittances represent genuinely new inflows rather than funds previously routed through informal channels? Come to think of it, how much of these remittances finance productive investments instead of household consumption? Can diaspora remittances realistically become a permanent substitute for export competitiveness?
No economy has ever industrialised on remittances alone. A nation cannot sustainably depend on the sacrifices of its citizens abroad while failing to create opportunities for them at home.
Beyond the reserve figures lies another troubling contradiction. This is more disturbing because every month, FAAC distributes unprecedented sums to governments across Nigeria. Yet again, with daily regret, the average Nigerian struggles with deteriorating public services.
Honestly speaking, it has become so frustrating that the majority of the people who yearn for pleasant or attractive experiences are struggling as roads remain poor, public hospitals remain overstretched, schools continue to decline, electricity remains unreliable, water infrastructure remains inadequate, and youth unemployment remains widespread. Worst still, think of the cases as the nation continues to grapple with rising inflation, worsening poverty, declining purchasing power, struggling businesses and persistent insecurity.
One major contradiction is that if revenues continue rising while poverty deepens, then one unavoidable question must be asked: Where is the money going? Another pertinent question: How can the citizens be surrounded by water and still suffer from thirst or soap lather in their eyes?
This has been the predominant worry in the minds of many even as the World Bank itself acknowledges this disconnect. While praising recent macroeconomic reforms for improving fiscal stability, strengthening foreign reserves and restoring investor confidence, it concludes emphatically that the gains have not translated into meaningful improvements in living standards.
Ironically, despite the claims of declining inflation, it continues to erode purchasing power. Social protection remains weak. Most Nigerians remain trapped in low-productivity informal employment.
One contradicting and astonishing step taken recently is nowhere more evident than in the Central Bank’s monetary policy. Consider this: despite a marginal decline in headline inflation to 15.91 per cent in June 2026, the Monetary Policy Committee retained the benchmark Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) at 26.5 per cent, alongside a 45 per cent Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) for commercial banks.
The decision reflects understandable caution. The CBN remains concerned that escalating geopolitical tensions in the Middle East could increase global energy prices, worsen imported inflation and reverse recent gains in price stability.
From a monetary policy perspective, this caution is defensible. But from the standpoint of businesses and households, the consequences are profound. An interest rate of 26.5 per cent inevitably translates into prohibitively expensive bank lending.
The ripple and adverse effects have led to manufacturers struggling to finance expansion. Another tough aspect is seeing the small and medium-sized enterprises, the backbone of employment generation, find access to affordable credit increasingly difficult. Entrepreneurs postpone investments. Factories delay expansion. Potential employers reduce hiring. Economic growth slows.
Ironically, while it is understandable that high interest rates may help stabilise inflation and attract foreign portfolio inflows that support reserves, it should be made known that they simultaneously suppress domestic investment, production and job creation.
In other words, the same policies helping strengthen the country’s macroeconomic indicators may also be constraining the real economy. Even the celebrated decline in inflation deserves closer scrutiny.
The national inflation rate may have eased marginally to 15.91 per cent, but this national average masks severe hardship across much of the country, which continues to create perpetual pain.
How best can this be figured out if data from the National Bureau of Statistics show that 19 states and the Federal Capital Territory recorded inflation rates exceeding 30 per cent, with Niger State above 42 percent and Kogi State exceeding 41 per cent?
Food inflation continues to rise, driven by increases in the prices of tomatoes, pepper, beef, yams, garri and other staple foods.
Businesses themselves remain unconvinced. The Organised Private Sector has welcomed the marginal moderation in inflation but insists that prices remain painfully high for both consumers and businesses.
Leaders of small business associations argue that market realities tell a different story from headline statistics. For millions of Nigerians, inflation is not measured by percentages. It is measured by empty shopping baskets. By reduced meal portions. By businesses shutting their doors. By families withdrawing children from school. By postponed medical treatments.
From a theoretical standpoint, macroeconomic stability is undoubtedly necessary. Without it, sustainable development is impossible. But it would also be agreed that macroeconomic stability alone is not sufficient. It can be argued further that economic reforms must eventually improve household incomes, reduce poverty, expand productive employment and raise living standards.
Otherwise, they risk becoming reforms that look impressive in economic reports but remain invisible in everyday life.
The truth remains that with the current situation, Nigeria therefore stands at a critical pivotal moment and the decisions taken now will determine its future.
The current reserve position should not become a destination for celebration but a foundation for deeper structural transformation. The country must diversify exports beyond crude oil. Strengthen manufacturing. Promote value-added agricultural exports. Improve electricity supply. Reduce the cost of doing business. Expand logistics infrastructure. Attract long-term productive investment.
In addition, support local industries with affordable financing. Strengthen institutions. Improve governance and ensure greater accountability for public spending. Only then will rising reserves translate into rising prosperity. Only then will record FAAC allocations produce visible development. Only then will macroeconomic stability become household stability.
The ultimate measure of economic success is not the number of dollars held in the Central Bank’s vaults. It is whether parents can afford school fees and housing rent. Whether young graduates can find decent jobs. Whether businesses can borrow, produce and expand. Whether families can afford food without sacrificing nutrition. Whether citizens feel that economic growth includes them.
Until those questions receive positive answers, one uncomfortable question will continue to linger. Who Is Nigeria’s Economy Serving Today?
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: bl***********@***il.com
By Henry Obiekea
Nigeria’s banking industry is entering one of the most significant transformation periods since the 2005 banking consolidation exercise. The Central Bank of Nigeria’s (CBN) ongoing recapitalisation programme is more than a regulatory requirement—it is a strategic investment in the country’s financial future. If implemented successfully, it has the potential to strengthen financial stability, deepen credit access, improve investor confidence, and support a more inclusive and resilient economy.
In March 2024, the CBN announced new minimum capital requirements for commercial, merchant and non-interest banks. Under the new framework, international commercial banks are required to maintain a minimum paid-up capital of ₦500 billion, national commercial banks ₦200 billion, and regional commercial banks ₦50 billion. Merchant banks are required to hold ₦50 billion, while national and regional non-interest banks are required to maintain ₦20 billion and ₦10 billion respectively. The policy reflects the realities of today’s economy, where inflation, currency depreciation and expanding financial demands have significantly altered the capital required to support sustainable banking operations.
Many institutions have responded through rights issues, public offers, private placements, mergers and acquisitions in pursuit of the revised capital requirements. Beyond regulatory compliance, the exercise is already encouraging stronger governance, better capital planning and increased investor participation within Nigeria’s financial markets.
The recapitalisation conversation, however, extends beyond deposit money banks. The CBN has also introduced revised capital requirements for microfinance banks, recognising the critical role they play in extending financial services to underserved individuals, nano businesses and small enterprises. As the financial landscape becomes increasingly digital, stronger capital bases will enable these institutions to invest in technology, cybersecurity, risk management and product innovation while maintaining public confidence.
For Nigeria’s rapidly growing fintech ecosystem, although they are subject to different licensing frameworks depending on their operations, the broader regulatory direction is equally clear. Institutions that facilitate payments, tech-enabled banking, lending and savings are expected to maintain governance, capital and consumer protection standards appropriate to their respective licensing frameworks. This evolution is essential as fintechs continue to account for a growing share of financial transactions and provide services to millions of previously underserved Nigerians. Collectively, these reforms present a unique opportunity to reshape Nigeria’s financial ecosystem.
A stronger banking sector creates stronger economic outcomes. Well-capitalised financial institutions are better positioned to finance infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture, housing and technology. They possess greater capacity to absorb economic shocks, support long-term lending and withstand periods of market volatility. More importantly, they can extend larger volumes of prudently underwritten credit to businesses that create jobs and stimulate economic growth.
For small and medium-sized enterprises, which contribute significantly to Nigeria’s GDP and employment, improved access to financing remains one of the greatest growth enablers. Recapitalisation should not be assessed solely by stronger balance sheets, but also by the extent to which additional capital supports productive economic activity.
Despite remarkable progress over the last decade, millions of Nigerians remain underserved by formal financial institutions. Expanding financial inclusion requires complementary approaches across commercial banks, microfinance banks, fintechs and other regulated financial institutions. Achieving meaningful inclusion requires collaboration across commercial banks, microfinance banks, fintech companies and regulators. Each institution serves different customer segments, yet all contribute towards a common objective: bringing more Nigerians into the formal financial system.
At FairMoney Microfinance Bank, recapitalisation aligns with our continued investment in responsible lending, digital banking capabilities, sound risk management and financial inclusion. We believe technology can complement prudent credit assessment and help extend access to financial services for eligible individuals and businesses.
As the recapitalisation programme progresses, success should ultimately be measured by broader outcomes: stronger institutions, deeper financial inclusion, increased SME financing, enhanced consumer confidence and sustained economic growth. Capital itself does not transform economies; how that capital is deployed does.
The Federal Government and the Central Bank of Nigeria have introduced reforms aimed at strengthening the long-term resilience of the financial sector. Continued implementation of these reforms will be important in supporting financial stability and sustainable sector growth. These decisions require vision, consistency and regulatory discipline. While the adjustment process may present short-term challenges for some institutions, the long-term benefits for financial stability, investor confidence and economic development far outweigh the costs.
Nigeria possesses one of Africa’s most dynamic financial services sectors. With stronger capital foundations, responsible innovation and continued collaboration between regulators and financial institutions, the country is well positioned to build a banking ecosystem capable of supporting its development ambitions, empowering millions more individuals and businesses, and supporting inclusive economic development over the long term.
Henry Obiekea is the Managing Director of FairMoney Microfinance Bank
By Sani Abdulrazak, PhD
People go through watershed moments sometimes when the cacophony of politics attempts to drown the cadence of progress; it becomes more serious when chimaera masquerades as certainty, but it is a known fact after all that the loudest voices are most times not necessarily the wisest.
Kaduna seems to have arrived at one of those moments. The propagandist opposition within the state is trying very hard to burnish manifestoes and criticisms wrapped in hyperbole and rehearsed until it begins to mistake itself for truth.
Yet, history has always been an unforgiving arbiter. It has an uncanny habit of stripping rhetoric naked, leaving only the vestiges of deeds. It is against that backdrop that one is compelled to reflect, not on who shouts the loudest, especially on social media, but on who has quietly altered the landscape of the beautiful crocodile state. That, conceivably, is the choice before Kaduna State.
Education hewn the destiny of a society, long before it is announced in boardrooms. Governor Uba Sani of Kaduna State appears to appreciate this axiom. As if constructing hundreds of classrooms, renovating neglected schools, expanding access to education and reviving projects abandoned to bureaucratic torpor is not remarkably astral, his administration has gone further to make tertiary education more affordable through the reduction of tuition fees in state-owned institutions. That single decision has become a bulwark against hopelessness for thousands of families. Parents breathe easier, students remain in school instead of abandoning their dreams, enrolment has received fresh impetus, and human capital has become a little less hostage to economic adversity.
Even the reconstruction of roads within Ahmadu Bello University, despite its federal status, speaks of governance that refuses to hide behind jurisdictional caveats. Curiously, while lecture halls become fuller, some critics remain engrossed in composing jeremiads, as though hashtags now award degrees and social media threads have replaced convocation ceremonies. If this does not deserve another term, then perhaps Kaduna should entrust its classrooms to keyboard warriors instead?
A sector that defies drama, yet consequentially integral in Kaduna State is healthcare. Primary Healthcare Centres have continued to receive upgrades, sixteen general hospitals have witnessed rehabilitation, the once-abandoned 300-bed Specialist Hospital has emerged from years of limbo, health insurance coverage has expanded considerably, and investments in personnel and equipment continue with assiduity. Yet, one occasionally encounters the strange absurdity wrapped as opposition, that government should be judged not by functioning hospitals but by the virulence of online criticism. It is almost as though some believe ailments or surgeries retreat before social media posts. Should we now replace stethoscopes with microphones or social media posts and call it healthcare?
If there is any sector that more clearly illustrates the difference between governance and grandstanding in Kaduna State, it is agriculture. Mechanisation, dry-season farming, free fertiliser distribution, value addition, the Special Agro-Industrial Processing Zone and renewed support for farmers all point towards a carefully crafted paradigm rather than an accidental policy.
There is a metamorphosis taking place in rural communities indeed. While genuine farmers harvest maize, ginger and tomatoes, critics harvest conspiracy theories with astonishing alacrity. One group tills the soil and produces food; the other tills public resentment. Since when did viral posts become a substitute for fertile fields?
They wouldn’t want to take their ballyhoo to infrastructure for sure, because infrastructure refuses to remain invisible no matter how determined propaganda may be. Roads snake through communities once forgotten, bridges reconnect places long separated, water projects restore hope where scarcity once seemed ineluctable, and abandoned projects have gradually returned from institutional comatose. Yet there exists a peculiar group of disgruntled politicians that notices every pothole repaired only long enough to ask why another one still exists somewhere else. It is a curious predilection, almost quixotic, to dismiss completed projects because perfection has not yet arrived. Must development now apologise for not occurring overnight?
Security remains man’s most delicate labyrinth, and perhaps the easiest subject upon which to score political points. No responsible leader claims absolute victory against insecurity, yet few can deny that many communities once deserted have gradually witnessed the return of farming, commerce and social interaction. Such progress may not satisfy those addicted to political apoplexy, but it certainly matters to the farmer returning to his land after years of displacement. Or should insecurity be preserved simply because it offers better campaign material?
Economic governance, that complex yet rarely glamorous aspect of governance, is not left out. Increased internally generated revenue, prudent expenditure, strategic partnerships, capital investments and fiscal discipline have gradually strengthened Kaduna’s financial architecture. International partners investing in Kaduna State seldom do so because of slogans, but because of credibility. Sadly, the numbers don’t lie as data is a very stubborn thing. Are spreadsheets now expected to consult political parties before balancing their figures, or should economic data also join the opposition?
Youth empowerment deserves equal reflection. With a skills acquisition centre in each of the three senatorial zones of the state, entrepreneurship support, digital innovation and targeted interventions for small businesses, an attempt is being made to replace dependency with productivity. The apotheosis of governance is not the endless distribution of charity but the deliberate creation of opportunity. Young people increasingly seek tools and training against tokenism and expectancy. Still, some measure empowerment only by the number of campaign T-shirts distributed during election season. Have branded caps suddenly become the highest form of economic policy?
The choice before Kaduna State is simpler than it first appears. Shall we exchange reduced tuition fees for recycled promises? Shall rehabilitated hospitals be traded for rehearsed indignation? Shall roads surrender to rhetoric, farms to social media debates, security gains to sensationalism, and fiscal prudence to flamboyant bombast? Shall tangible progress bow before political charlatanry merely because criticism aims to be louder than construction?
For our democracy to grow further, we must come to a non-negotiable conclusion that the ballot is not an instrument for rewarding the most eloquent critic, but for judging the most effective steward. How promising can stewardship be when classrooms are expanding, hospitals are reopening, roads are stretching farther, farmers are receiving greater support, communities are gradually becoming safer, and opportunities are multiplying.
The evidence before us is not ephemerally ethereal, but enduringly concrete. And so, the lingering questions refuse to disappear: if this is not the direction Kaduna should continue, then what is? If these are not the footprints of purposeful leadership, whose are? If measurable progress has become insufficient, what miracle remains outstanding? And if the answer lies somewhere beyond Governor Uba Sani, then who, exactly, has presented Kaduna with a more convincing testament than the one already written across its schools, hospitals, farms, roads and communities?
Sani Abdulrazak, PhD, is a writer, researcher and a public affairs analyst based in Zaria, Kaduna State.
