Feature/OPED
Looking at the Savannah Bank vs Ajilo Legal Battle
By Benita Ayo
- The Facts of the Case
A deed of Mortgage was executed between Savannah Bank and Ajilo and upon default, Savannah Bank sought to sell the property involved in the mortgage by advertising the auction sale. When Ajilo became aware of the purported sale, he went to the High Court of Lagos to sue for declaration that the Deed of Mortgage was void and also that the Auction Notice was also void.
The major grounds upon which the action was brought were that, by section 22 of the Land Use Act, 1978, the consent of the Governor of Lagos State ought to be first sought and obtained and as no consent was sought and obtained, both the Deed of Mortgage and the Auction Notice were void.
The trial Court held that failure to obtain the required consent of the Governor under S. 22 of the Act has rendered the Deed of Mortgage null and void and the mortgage transaction is illegal.
Upon an appeal at the Court of Appeal by Savannah Bank, the Court held that every right holder whether under S. 34 or S. 36 of the Land Use Act requires the consent of the Governor before he can transfer, mortgage or otherwise dispose of his interest in the Right of Occupancy. The Appeal was thus dismissed.
On further Appeal at the Supreme Court, the above position was affirmed with the Appeal dismissed.
- COMMENTS
2.2 PRINCIPLE
The general principle of law in respect of alienation of interest in property was actually derived from the provisions of Section 22 Land Use Act, 1978 which provides that;
“It shall not be lawful for a holder of statutory Right of Occupancy granted by the Governor to alienate his Right of Occupancy or any part thereof by Assignment, Mortgage, Transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise howsoever without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained”.
The above provision was later on interpreted in the case of Savannah Bank v. Ajilo which became the locus classicus for the legal principle that “Where a holder desires to alienate his interest in a Certificate of Occupancy, he must first obtain the Governor’s consent to make such transfer valid according to S. 22 of the Land Use Act….”
- APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE ON VARIOUS CASES
The principal statute regulating land tenure system in Nigeria being the Land Use Act conferred the ownership of Land in the Federation on the Governor of each State.
The implication of this is that Freehold title to land becomes abolished with the State Government holding all Land in the State in trust for the citizens. Thus, anyone seeking to acquire interest in any landed property or seeking to alienate same by way of Assignment, Lease or Mortgage must do so after seeking and obtaining the consent of the State Governor. See S. 22 Land Use Act.
The principle has been applied by the courts in a plethora of cases some of which will be briefly discussed below.
- IMPLICATION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
Failure to seek and obtain the requisite consent renders such transaction invalid. This was the butt of the matter in the instant case of Savannah Bank v. Ajilo which facts of the case as well as the final judicial pronouncements were stated above.
As stated earlier on, the Courts have applied the principle in the Ajilo’s case in some cases such as HARUNA v. YARO (2016) LPELR-41554 (CA) where the Court held that;
“On the issue of Governor’s consent, it is correct that the combined effect of Sections 22 and 26 of the Land Use Act is to render null and void any alienation or transfer of a Right of Occupancy or interest or right there under without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained”.
In yet another case of SIMM COMPUTER RESOURCES LTD & ANOR v. FIRST INLAND BANK (2016) LPELR-40493 (CA) the Court decided that,
“The alienation of a right in a Certificate of Occupancy under the Land Use Act is clearly covered by Section 22 of the Act. it provides as follows:
“It shall not be lawful for the holder of a statutory Right of Occupancy granted by the Governor to alienate his Right of Occupancy or any part thereof by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained.”
Another relevant provision is Section 26 of the Land Use Act which says:
“Any transaction or any instrument which purports to confer on or rest in any person any interest or right over land other than in accordance with the provision of this Act shall be null and void.”
These provisions are clear and straight forward and therefore ought to be given their literal interpretation or meaning. The Section has received judicial attention in a plethora of cases and the locus classicus is the case of SAVANNAH BANK OF NIGERIA LTD v. AMMEL. O. AJILO (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 97) 254 wherein the Court held that where a holder desires to alienate his interest in a Certificate of Occupancy, he must first obtain the Governor’s consent to make such transfer valid according to Section 22 of the Land Use Act. …………. The Supreme Court in the case of I.T.I. v. ADEREMI (1999) 6 SCNJ 1 held that there are two stages to alienation of interest in Land and they are;
- The holder may enter into a contract of sale of his right, at that stage he does not need the Governor’s consent.
- The second stage is that of alienating the right that is the stage when he assigns his right by a deed of assignment, to now vest the legal estate in the purchaser, and he needs the Governor’s consent to make the transaction valid.”
- EXCEPTIONS OR CURRENT LEGAL POSITION IN VIEW OF SAVANNAH BANK v. AJILO
It is viewed from a different standpoint that the legal stance in Savannah Bank v. Ajilo rather promotes sharp practices such as a party benefitting from his own wrong.
This was exactly the situation in Savannah Bank v. Ajilo where the Defendant in this case sought to prevent the Plaintiff from selling off the mortgaged property in an auction sale by invoking the provisions of Section 22 Land Use Act, 1978.
While still conceding the fact that where a person in alienating his interest in property must seek the consent of the State Governor in order for such alienation to be valid, the failure to obtain the said consent before executing the Deed of Conveyance does not in itself invalidate the transaction. It only makes the transaction inchoate or incomplete.
See for instance the case of HARUNA v. BANK OF AGRICULTURE LTD & ORS (2016) LPELR-40467 (CA) where the Court concluded that,
“The Courts have held that there is nothing in the Land Use Act preventing the execution of an instrument before the consent of the Governor is obtained. It simply means that the agreement entered into is inchoate (Incomplete) until the Governor’s consent is sought and obtained.”
Also in YARO v. AREWA CONSTRUCTION LTD & ORS (2007) LPELR-3516 (SC), it was held that;
“The 3rd Respondent has raised the question of Section 22 of Land Use Act, concisely, the section requires that Governor’s consent to the mortgage deal has to be first had and obtained otherwise the contract is void. I think with respect that the 3rd Respondent’s objection is lame in that as decided in Awojugbagbe v. Chinukwe & Anor (Supra), it is after the mortgage has been executed that obtaining of the Governor’s consent falls due. It is normally after the parties have agreed that the Deed of Assignment is prepared and sent for Governor’s consent. The instant mortgage therefore has not fallen foul of Section 22 of the Land Use Decree.”
In practice, whenever interest in property is transferred from the owner to a buyer, the relevant Deed of Conveyance is prepared and executed between the parties prior to obtaining the consent of the State Governor. The courts have held that this procedure does not invalidate the transaction but rather, no interest has yet passed to the buyer.
See the case of AWOJUGBAGBE LIGHT INDUSTRIES LTD v. CHINUKWE & ANOR (1995) LPLER-650 (SC) for instance where the Supreme Court held that;
“A close study of Section 22(2) of the Land Use Act clearly confirms that it does recognise cases where some form of written agreement or instrument executed in evidence of the relevant transaction is submitted to the Governor in order that the necessary consent under Section 22(1) may be signified by endorsement thereon. This being so, I do not conceive that it can be argued with any degree of seriousness that there is anything unlawful in the entering into or execution of Exhibit E before the Governor’s consent was obtained as this procedure is expressly covered by Section 22 (2) of the Land Use Act. The legal consequence that arises in such a situation is that no interest in land passes under the agreement until the necessary consent is obtained. Such an agreement so executed becomes inchoate until the consent of the governor is obtained after which it can be said to be complete and fully effective. I am therefore of the firm view that Section 22 (1) of the Land Use Act prohibits the alienation of a Right of Occupancy without the consent of the governor first had and obtained but does not prohibit agreement to alienate or in respect of terms and conditions for the purpose of effecting such alienation if and when the Governor gives his consent to the transaction in issue.”
CONCLUSION
Finally, it has been discussed that a party seeking to alienate his interest in property whether in part or in whole as is the cases with Assignment, Leases or Mortgage, must first seek and obtain the consent of the State Governor. This does not however mean that he cannot execute a document evidencing the transaction as could be gleaned from the aforementioned authorities. See HARUNA v. BANK OF AGRICULTURE LTD & ORS (SUPRA).
However, what this implies is that notwithstanding the execution of a document of conveyance, the transfer is incomplete until the requisite consent is sought and had and this is usually in practice done by endorsement in the column for it within the document of conveyance.
Finally, the implication of a party’s failure to seek and obtain the Governor’s consent in property transactions according to the aforementioned case of HARUNA (SUPRA) is that the transaction is incomplete rather than null and void as was the case in Savannah Bank v. Ajilo. It is only where the transaction has been perfected (Consent sought and obtained) will the transaction be complete.
Benita Ayo is a legal practitioner based in Lagos and be contacted on WhatsApp: 08063775768 or email: be*********@***oo.com.
By Blaise Udunze
From a general observation, comparisons are powerful political tools. They simplify complex realities, inspire supporters and shape public perception. Another side of this is that they can also become misleading when symbolism replaces substance.
The latter appears to be the objective behind two recent interventions in defence of his excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Respectfully, it was observed that veteran journalist Martin Oloja likened Tinubu’s political journey to that of football icon Lionel Messi. He portrayed him as a resilient strategist whose patience and tactical brilliance eventually produced victory. As this now appears to be a trend, Imo State Governor Hope Uzodimma further elevated the narrative, comparing Tinubu to Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew. He didn’t stop at that; rather further argued that today’s painful reforms would eventually transform Nigeria just as Lee transformed Singapore. They are compelling analogies.
Unfortunately, it was observed that both began to unravel once governance, not politics, was used as the standard of measurement.
It is a known fact to the world that Lionel Messi is celebrated not because he endured criticism or finally lifted the World Cup after years of disappointment. He is celebrated because his greatness is measurable. His goals are counted. His assists are recorded. His trophies are displayed, and not just that, his records speak louder than the opinions of his admirers, which may have taken a different turn now after the outcome of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
The same is also true of Lee Kuan Yew. History has shown that he is not revered because he introduced difficult reforms or enjoyed the support of loyal political allies. Governor Hope should be reminded that Lee is remembered because he fundamentally transformed Singapore. Amongst his achievements were transforming a poor trading port into one of the world’s richest, cleanest, safest and most efficiently governed nations.
Lee’s records speak for him because under his leadership, Singapore built world-class infrastructure, an incorruptible public service, globally competitive education, affordable housing, investor confidence and one of the highest standards of living anywhere in the world.
Neither Messi nor Lee Kuan Yew became legends through carefully crafted narratives. Yes, they became legends because the evidence became impossible to dispute. That is precisely where comparisons with President Tinubu become difficult.
It is an error to assume that winning elections is the same as winning governance, and at the same time, political brilliance may secure power, but only effective leadership secures history’s approval.
For millions of Nigerians, governance is not measured by campaign strategy or political resilience. It is measured by the realities they confront every morning.
Can they afford food? Can they pay transport fares? Can they pay rent with the current landlords’ economy? Can they keep their businesses open? Can they sleep or travel freely without fear of kidnapping? Can they find jobs after graduation? Can they access reliable electricity and healthcare? These are the scoreboards by which governments are judged.
Supporters of the Tinubu administration frequently point to encouraging macroeconomic indicators. Foreign reserves have improved. Government revenues have risen. States now receive significantly larger allocations through the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC). Well, these ‘achievements’ will be reviewed soon through the lens of news narratives. International financial institutions have welcomed several policy reforms. The removal of fuel subsidy and exchange-rate liberalisation are presented as courageous decisions that previous administrations avoided.
These developments deserve acknowledgement. Yet macroeconomic improvements are not the same as improvements in citizens’ welfare.
In reality, an economy cannot be declared successful merely because government revenues have increased while household purchasing power continues to deteriorate, as this would be a complete aberration.
Again, it is considered an anomaly that Nigeria reports stronger fiscal numbers, but millions of families continue to struggle with soaring food prices, rising transport costs, expensive housing, high electricity tariffs and shrinking disposable incomes.
Statistics may comfort policymakers. They rarely comfort hungry citizens. Messi never celebrated possession statistics after losing a match; rather, he cried and cried over losing the opportunity of winning the trophy at the concluded 2026 FIFA World Cup. To him, results mattered.
The reality is that governments should be judged by the same principle. This is open to dispute, but of a truth, Governor Uzodimma’s comparison to Lee Kuan Yew deserves even closer scrutiny because it raises an important question, though it may appear hard to answer.
If Tinubu is Nigeria’s Lee Kuan Yew, where is Nigeria’s Singapore? What exactly made Lee Kuan Yew exceptional? Was it simply his willingness to implement painful reforms? Certainly not.
Many leaders across the developing world have introduced painful reforms. Very few transformed their countries.
One thing stands out here: Lee’s legacy rests on outcomes, not intentions. Judging from all indications, it is obvious that his reforms dramatically reduced corruption, attracted investment, strengthened institutions, expanded industrialisation, improved education, guaranteed affordable public housing and steadily raised incomes across generations. Unlike Nigeria’s ongoing experience, Singapore’s rise was not a promise repeatedly postponed to the future. Citizens experienced tangible improvements in their daily lives. That is why history celebrates Lee Kuan Yew. Nigeria’s present reality tells a different story.
It is glaring and ironic that despite improved fiscal revenues, many Nigerians continue to grapple with rising inflation, worsening poverty, declining purchasing power, youth unemployment, struggling businesses and persistent insecurity. If they must know, these are not merely economic statistics; they are the lived realities by which citizens judge any government.
The Lee Kuan Yew comparison also overlooks perhaps the most important ingredient behind Singapore’s success, which is primarily the institutions.
It is obvious and practically doubtful if Governor Uzodinma’s kind of Singapore is the same as the one on which its transformation was built upon an efficient bureaucracy, disciplined public institutions, predictable regulation, meritocracy, uncompromising anti-corruption enforcement and consistent long-term planning as championed by Lee Kuan Yew. An honest question here is, can the same be said of Nigeria today?
The truth is not far-fetched; Nigeria is nothing close to it because the realities and lived experiences of Nigerians are that the country continues to grapple with weak institutions, policy inconsistency, bureaucratic inefficiency, corruption concerns and widespread insecurity.
His impeccable achievements are built on the institutions; hence, without institutional transformation, every effort to invoke Lee Kuan Yew risks confusing aspiration with achievement.
One common trend witnessed lately is that the supporters of the administration often argue that Nigerians must be patient because meaningful reforms require time. That argument deserves consideration.
Let it also be made known that patience should never become an endless substitute for accountability. Citizens are also entitled to ask whether the sacrifices demanded today are producing measurable improvements tomorrow.
History remembers leaders not because they prescribed hardship, but because that hardship ultimately produced prosperity for those alive and not for the dead.
Another weakness in both comparisons is the tendency to confuse political mastery with administrative excellence. These are totally two different things, because when it comes to winning elections, it requires coalition building, negotiation and political calculation. Whilst running a nation demands competent institutions, sound economic management, transparency, public trust and measurable improvements in living standards.
Again, the two are not the same, and for this reason, many exceptional politicians have governed poorly. Many successful administrators never became political giants. Democracy ultimately rewards governance, not political mythology.
This is not to suggest that President Tinubu’s administration has achieved nothing. Tax reforms, infrastructure investments, fiscal restructuring and efforts to stabilise public finances represent important policy initiatives whose long-term impact remains to be seen. Well, acknowledging those initiatives is consistent with honest public discourse.
Equally important, however, is recognising that millions of Nigerians continue to judge the administration through the realities and their lived experiences rather than the promises they hear.
Football supporters judged Lionel Messi by the trophies in the cabinet. In like manner, history judges Lee Kuan Yew by the Singapore he built. The same measure should be applied in this nation, as Nigerians will judge President Tinubu by the Nigeria he leaves behind.
The key metric here is that if inflation falls sustainably, poverty declines significantly, insecurity is substantially reduced, electricity becomes more reliable, industries expand, jobs multiply, and citizens regain confidence in the future, history will acknowledge those achievements without requiring comparisons to Messi or Lee Kuan Yew.
Neither Messi nor Lee Kuan Yew needed political allies to persuade the world of their greatness, and that distinguishes both as the greatest of all time (GOAT).
Their records spoke for themselves. Political endorsements may dominate today’s headlines. History, however, listens only to evidence. Even Messi needed trophies. Lee Kuan Yew needed results. Nigerian leaders should be judged by no lesser standard.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: bl***********@***il.com
By Jerome-Mario Utomi
There are moments in the life of a nation when leadership is measured not merely by the ability to command institutions but by the courage to transform them. Such moments demand more than administrative competence; they require vision, strategic communication, and an unwavering commitment to rebuilding public confidence. The keynote address delivered on behalf of the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Mr Olatunji Rilwan Disu, at the Lagos PR Fest 2026 grand finale was one of such defining moments.
Held at the iconic MUSON Centre, Onikan, Lagos, the event transcended the boundaries of a conventional police engagement. It became a national conversation on security, governance, public trust, and the indispensable role of strategic communication in nation-building.
More importantly, the IGP, who was represented at the event by AIG Simeon Udofia Akpanudom, Head of the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID) Annex, Alagbon Close, Ikoyi, revealed a policing philosophy that is quietly but deliberately redefining the image and operational culture of the Nigeria Police Force.
For decades, public perception of policing in Nigeria has largely been shaped by mistrust, misunderstanding, and an unfortunate history of strained relations between citizens and law enforcement agencies. While successive administrations have introduced reforms, many struggled to address the most fundamental ingredient of effective policing-public trust.
IGP Disu appears determined to confront that challenge from an entirely different perspective.
His declaration that “security is everyone’s business” was not a rhetorical flourish. It was a profound statement of intent. It reflected an understanding that sustainable security cannot be achieved through coercion alone but through partnership, inclusion, transparency, and continuous engagement with the people. Indeed, what the IGP has introduced is more than institutional reform. It is a comprehensive rebranding of policing itself.
Unlike cosmetic rebranding that focuses on uniforms, slogans, or public ceremonies, this initiative is rooted in changing institutional culture and public perception simultaneously. It seeks to replace fear with confidence, suspicion with collaboration, and silence with meaningful dialogue.
The brilliance of this approach lies in its recognition that trust is not demanded; it is earned.
Throughout the keynote, the IGP consistently emphasised evidence-based communication, accountability, and transparency as pillars upon which public confidence must be rebuilt. At a time when misinformation travels faster than facts, and public institutions are constantly subjected to intense scrutiny, his insistence that policing should be supported by credible information rather than propaganda reflects both wisdom and contemporary relevance.
Perhaps nowhere is this transformation more visible than in the establishment and expansion of the Violent Crimes Response Unit (VCRU). Rather than allowing achievements to remain hidden within internal reports, the Nigeria Police Force is increasingly communicating measurable outcomes, demonstrable operational effectiveness, and encouraging independent public assessment.
This deliberate openness and transparency represent a significant departure from the communication style traditionally associated with many security institutions.
Equally commendable is the renewed emphasis on accessible channels for complaints, feedback and citizen engagement. Every modern democratic institution understands that accountability strengthens authority rather than weakening it. By inviting public scrutiny instead of avoiding it, the Nigeria Police under IGP Disu is gradually redefining what institutional confidence should look like. The Inspector-General deserves particular commendation for recognising that public relations is not an appendage to policing but an operational necessity.
Far too often, public relations is misunderstood as image laundering or crisis management. In reality, effective public relations is about building relationships, creating understanding, managing expectations, and sustaining credibility. It is this broader and more professional understanding that permeated the Inspector-General’s address.
His decision to engage public relations professionals at Lagos PR Fest was therefore highly symbolic. It demonstrated that security communication must evolve beyond press statements announcing arrests or crime statistics. It must become a continuous conversation with citizens, communities, opinion leaders, professional bodies, and the media.
Equally remarkable is the renewed focus on community policing and the revitalisation of the Police Community Relations Committee (PCRC). These initiatives acknowledge an enduring truth: communities understand their security challenges better than distant bureaucracies.
By encouraging local participation, youth engagement, religious leaders, traditional institutions, and civil society organisations to become active stakeholders, the Nigeria Police is moving policing closer to the people it serves.
This approach is consistent with successful policing models across the world where intelligence flows more freely because communities trust law enforcement agencies enough to share information.
The emphasis on participatory campaigns such as “Security is Everyone’s Business” and “If you see something, say something” further reinforces this philosophy. These messages wisely redefine every citizen from being a passive observer into an active contributor to national security.
That represents strategic public relations at its finest. Perhaps the most compelling dimension of the Inspector General’s address is his deliberate connection between policing and nation-building.
Security does not exist in isolation. It supports economic growth, encourages investment, protects democratic institutions, and creates the stability necessary for social development. Safe highways promote commerce. Secure schools guarantee educational continuity. Protected communities attract investment. Professional law enforcement strengthens constitutional governance.
Viewed through this broader lens, policing becomes an essential instrument of national development rather than merely an agency of law enforcement. The Inspector-General’s appeal for “Nigeria First” narratives equally deserves commendation. In an era characterised by misinformation, polarisation, and divisive narratives, institutions must intentionally promote messages that unite rather than divide.
Strategic communication has become an important national asset. This is where professional public relations practitioners have an enormous responsibility. Their expertise extends beyond media visibility to fostering social cohesion, encouraging responsible public discourse, and strengthening confidence in democratic institutions.
The Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR), therefore, occupies a strategic position in supporting this national assignment.
Naturally, scepticism remains understandable. Public confidence, once diminished, cannot be restored overnight. Institutional reforms require consistency, measurable outcomes, and sustained leadership commitment.
Fortunately, the Inspector-General himself demonstrated refreshing realism by acknowledging that rebuilding trust remains an ongoing process. That honesty itself strengthens credibility.
His clearly articulated roadmap-rebuilding institutional credibility through transparency, strengthening community intelligence through grassroots participation, and promoting national cohesion through coordinated communication-provides a practical framework for long-term institutional renewal.
Importantly, these objectives align with internationally recognised principles of democratic policing. What distinguishes the current leadership is the willingness to place communication at the very centre of institutional transformation rather than treating it as an afterthought.
Leadership is often remembered less for the challenges inherited than for the direction established. Judging from the philosophy articulated at Lagos PR Fest 2026, IGP Disu is laying the foundation for a policing model that recognises that legitimacy derives not only from constitutional authority but from public confidence.
That distinction is profound. A police force may possess legal powers, but without public trust those powers become increasingly difficult to exercise effectively. Conversely, when citizens willingly cooperate, volunteer intelligence, respect lawful authority, and see themselves as partners, security becomes collective rather than confrontational.
That appears to be the future envisioned by the Inspector-General. His concluding appeal that all stakeholders must work together in transparency, accountability, and shared responsibility captures the essence of democratic policing in the twenty-first century.
Ultimately, the significance of the Lagos PR Fest address extends far beyond one conference or one keynote presentation. It represents a declaration that the Nigeria Police Force is prepared to measure success not only by arrests made or crimes prevented but also by relationships built, confidence restored, and communities united.
For me, the recent elevation by the IGP and express approval by the Nigerian Police Service Commission of some senior officers to the rank of Assistant Inspectors-General of Police (AIGs). Commissioners of Police (CPs) and others truly proves beyond reasonable doubt that the IGP is a man who understands that professionalism, strategic thinking and operational excellence are the defining features of global policing. In fact, analysts in particular and Nigerians of goodwill in general are beginning to view the recent appointment of IGP Disu as a very huge blessing to the nation.
If sustained with consistency, integrity, and measurable performance, this strategic shift may well become one of the most consequential institutional reforms in contemporary Nigeria. For at the heart of every peaceful nation lies a simple but enduring truth: security thrives where trust flourishes.
By placing strategic public relations at the centre of policing, IGP Disu has demonstrated an appreciation of that timeless principle. In doing so, he has presented Nigerians with something far more valuable than a communication strategy. He has presented a vision.
A vision in which the police badge symbolises not fear but reassurance; not distance but partnership; not mere authority but earned legitimacy. That is a vision worthy of national support, thoughtful reflection, and sustained implementation.
Utomi, a media specialist, writes from Lagos, Nigeria. He can be reached via Je*********@***oo.com/08032725374
By Gloria Onosode
For generations, conventional financial advice has treated debt like a trap — a final, desperate resort for emergency cash or a slippery slope toward financial instability. But as Nigeria’s economic terrain evolves, this defensive mindset is changing. Progressive business leaders, entrepreneurs, and forward-thinking individuals are realising that it can be an important financial tool for achieving personal or business objectives when used responsibly and within one’s repayment capacity.
To build a sustainable financial future, we must change our relationship with credit. Borrowing shouldn’t be a cycle of survival; it should form part of a broader financial plan designed to support sustainable growth. The secret lies in masterfully understanding borrowing for productive purposes and learning how to leverage purposeful borrowing to hit your most ambitious milestones.
At its core, the difference between constructive and destructive borrowing comes down to one fundamental principle: what does the cash do once it lands in your account?
Bad debt funds depreciating lifestyle assets or temporary consumption. Borrowing to buy luxury clothing, fund a lavish party, or upgrade to a consumer gadget that does not increase your income simply pulls future earnings forward to pay for a fleeting present moment. It drains cash flow without offering a return.
Conversely, good debt acts as an investment in your future self or your company. It is capital deployed to acquire assets, increase productivity, or generate recurring revenue that far outpaces the cost of the interest. When you borrow to buy a delivery truck for your logistics company, stock up on inventory ahead of a peak retail season, or fund a specialised certification, you aren’t spending money — you are investing in assets that may contribute to increased productivity and income generation.
When integrated into a clear, long-term plan, purposeful loans may enable eligible borrowers to respond more quickly to business opportunities that would otherwise take years to save for. For small and medium enterprises (SMEs), cash-flow timing mismatches are the silent killers of momentum. You might get a massive corporate purchase order but lack the immediate working capital to fulfil it. Waiting weeks to organically pool cash from existing revenue means losing the contract. Appropriately structured commercial financing can help businesses address temporary working-capital gaps, ensuring that viable opportunities turn into realised revenue.
In inflation-heavy environments, waiting to save up the full purchase price for vital business assets like manufacturing machinery, solar power installations, or commercial vehicles can backfire, as equipment costs often outpace savings rates. By using asset-backed financing, you can acquire the equipment today, put it to work immediately, and allow the asset to generate revenue that may contribute towards financing costs over time.
Investment in skills and capacity development can generate significant long-term benefits. Utilising credit to fund high-value education, technical upskilling, or operational training directly expands your earning capacity. The resultant career advancement or business efficiency multiplies your income potential for decades to come.
Shifting from a defensive borrowing stance to a wealth-creation strategy requires strict financial discipline. Truly responsible borrowing is anchored in three non-negotiable practices.
First, borrow only for a productive purpose. It can be tempting to redirect a portion of a business loan toward personal expenses. Resist the urge; borrowed funds should be applied primarily to the purpose for which the financing was obtained.
Second, know your repayment runway before you sign. Borrowing decisions should be supported by realistic cash-flow planning and repayment capacity assessments. Review your cash-flow data, factor in market fluctuations, and map out exactly how the investment will generate the funds needed to clear the balance.
Finally, prioritise speed and transparency. In today’s fast-moving market, opportunity doesn’t wait for weeks of manual paperwork. Borrowing decisions should be supported by realistic cash-flow planning and repayment capacity assessments that offer transparent pricing with no hidden fees, giving you the clarity needed to compute your precise cost of capital.
When you strip away the historical stigma surrounding credit, you find that borrowing is simply a neutral financial tool. In the hands of an undisciplined spender, it creates friction, but in the hands of a strategic planner, it can support business growth and financial planning when used responsibly.
As you look toward your next major milestone — whether that is expanding your storefront, digitising your corporate supply chain, or acquiring productive assets — Before taking on any borrowing commitment, carefully assess your financing needs, repayment capacity, and long-term financial objectives. Instead, ask yourself if your business can afford the cost of standing still. When used responsibly, purpose-driven credit can support individuals and businesses in achieving sustainable financial goals.
Responsible borrowing also means understanding that credit creates a legal repayment obligation. Borrowers should carefully assess affordability, understand all applicable charges, and avoid taking on debt beyond their repayment capacity.
Gloria Onosode is the Director of Enterprise Sales at FairMoney Business
