Feature/OPED
Nigeria: Politicians Advocate Comprehensive Review of Constitution
By Kester Kenn Klomegah
Leaders of integrated associations and politicians, mostly from the Eastern region of Nigeria, are calling for a thorough constitutional review that will incorporate the diverse ethno-political interests and also offer equal representation in the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN).
Several archival reports made available and separate interviews conducted by IDN vividly show rising tensions and the lack of strategic foresight in the current approach towards national integration before 2023, the end of President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration.
Nigeria became a formally independent federation on October 1, 1960. It, however, experienced a civil war from 1967 to 1970. After that, it alternated between democratically-elected civilian governments and military dictatorships until it achieved a stable democracy in 1999, with the 2015 presidential election marking the first time an incumbent president had lost re-election.
In the 2019 presidential election, Muhammadu Buhari was re-elected for a second term in office defeating his closet rival Atiku Abubakar. As historical documents show, the Nigerian constitution was through a military decree adopted in 1999.
Nigeria is divided roughly in half between Christians, whose majority lives in the southern part of the country, and Muslims, who live mostly in the north.
Nigeria has respectively, the fifth-largest Muslim population in the world and the sixth-largest Christian population in the world, with the constitution ensuring freedom of religion. A minority of the population practise religions indigenous to Nigeria, such as those native to the Igbo and Yoruba ethnicities.
Currently, Islam has spread to the Christian dominated Eastern and Southern regions of Nigeria. Right after the Nigeria-Biafra civil war and until now, the Fulani people have dominated the military and politics in Nigeria. All is done for and by the Fulani for Fulani ethnic group, according to Kenneth Onyekachi Ihemekwele, Founding Partner of Imo State Indigenes Association, Executive Secretary of the Association of the Nigerian community and General Secretary of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra aka IPOB in Swaziland, southern Africa.
After independence, following the military take-overs, the negotiated constitution has primarily remained an unimplemented document. The devastation and the underdeveloped Eastern part of Nigeria is the result of negligence from the federal government following the end of the Nigerian-Biafra civil war. The military regimes introduced a series of decrees that ushered in policies that are believed not to accommodate the development and political interests of the Igbo people.
“Nigeria is one of Africa’s most diverse and deeply divided states in the world today. Colonial rule exacerbated these differences, solidifying religious and ethnic identity as salient political distinction and creating conditions for persistent instability.
“The north-south divide continues and is marked by the serious disparity in economic development and access to basic social services,” Ihemekwele told IDN in an emailed interview.
Competition for control of state institutions, abetted by corruption, and conflict over the spoils of Nigeria’s natural resources, especially oil, have further contributed to these sources of instability.
In pursuit of broad-based political participation, peace and integration, Onyekachi Ihemekwele suggests that “the current constitution is reviewed properly because the constitution was drafted without due consultations with the broad majority of the people of Nigeria.
“It is a one-sided constitution for the selfishness of a certain group of people, who call themselves the ruling class, or better still, the northern politicians. We are free people and have rights to shape our destiny.”
Under the current circumstances, an inclusive economic and political system is the only solution. The contemporary public discourse is focussed on political restructuring along regional lines. The calls for a political arrangement where major ethnic groups will have control over their geographic areas as well as resources therein might help. The danger is rather than uniting Nigeria it would further divide the country along distinctive ethnic and religious lines.
Significantly, the foot-dragging on constitutional review by Buhari’s leadership called for public criticisms, he noted and further explained that what Nigerians need, and are clamouring for, is a country that will accommodate ethnic diversity, a unified country regardless of ethnic or religious creed, but at present, cannot be because Islam defines politics. Nigeria needs political, religious and ethnic tolerance. The constitution has to guarantee public safety in every facet of life, and the need for legitimate, effective political and administrative institutions.
The Nigerian authorities have an emphatically negative attitude to public opinions on ending violence and armed attacks, especially on the inhabitants of Eastern Rivers State.
Despite consistent calls for the constitutional dialogue that will ultimately provide a basis for peace and integration, promote internal sustainable development nationwide and boost a positive image on international arena have, thus far, remains an unchangeable political dream. Opening the chapter as a new dawn for adherence to the ideals of political pluralism has indefinitely eluded millions of broad-minded Nigerians.
Onyekachi Ihemekwele concluded that Nigeria has fallen from grace, and there seems no remedy for Nigeria to regain this past glory.
“We had earlier called for restructuring, the need for the Nigerian government to agree to wholesome restructuring without reservation or grant a referendum for the people in the South-East to strive for self-rule or what is referred to, in politics, as self-determination,” he said.
Professor Nathaniel Aniekwu, Secretary of the Alaigho Development Foundation (ADF) regretted in an interview with IDN that 60 years after independence and 50 years after the Civil War, the growing threats and frequent attacks by northern ethnic groups and deepening pitfalls in the federal governance system have negatively affected the overall development of Biafra and other regions in Nigeria.
According to the ADF, Biafra symbolizes the Igbo people’s longing for freedom, underlining their predicament from the Amalgamation in 1914 to the Biafra Declaration on May 30, 1967. Ever since, Biafrans have been confronting a continuous state of estrangement, brutal attacks and punitive measures against their spiritual, economic and political survival. The world community continuously watches the large-scale atrocities committed in the country. As long as these wars are going on, Nigeria cannot have peace, and therefore, there would be no real significant progress.
All economic indices show that despite the perceived war against them, marginalization and exclusion from participation in the governance of Nigeria, the Biafra States continue to be very competitive and are far from being worse off among the Nigerian States. Although Nigeria is richly endowed with natural and human resources, it has quickly lost all its shine advantages, he said.
Moreover, whatever remained in the past, has been squandered, especially as they seek to exclude Biafrans from participation in political governance. They failed to deploy the appropriate resources, especially human resources, and broad-minded people who can guide and manage the development of the country, simply because most of them come from the Biafra States.
National integration is an obvious possibility, especially for the Biafra States. It is the only hope, not only that internal cohesion is imperative but also integrating into a union of the agreed that is paramount. Leadership must be looked from the point of view of the governed, at the micro-level of the society. This has to be positioned as a guarantor of the preservation of the multi-secular State in Nigeria.
The federal system of government is not working in Nigeria given the unique nature of the Nigerian political space. We must, therefore, return to the solution domain, seek long-term solutions, first by reviewing the constitution. By taking this step, it could make it more receptive to further peace initiatives, offer political opportunities and creating ground for representations instead of depriving them of participating in state management.
Without all-inclusive Federal Government and its related public institutions, efforts to maintain the status quo will result in sharp differences and disintegration. The political division along ethnic lines and the slow peace process will harm development, explained Nathaniel Aniekwu.
Mrs Marie Okwor, President of the Igbo Women Assembly (IWA) and one-time member of Advisory Council of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) is one of the remaining few Nigerians who have seen Nigeria from the struggle for independence through the development of its democracy.
Mrs Okwor, who is an Associate of the late Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, narrated her views about the impact of the Civil War, the current politics and the role of the church in Nigeria.
“The War of 1967-1970 war was a pogrom, a war of attrition meant to wipe out a whole race for no just cause. It reminded me of the Holocaust against the Jews. I feel very emotional as I speak about this,” she told IDN.
“Suffice it to say, that the war could have been avoided, had Nigeria kept her end of the agreement at Aburi, in the Republic of Ghana, which came to be called “the Aburi Accord” reached in 1967. This venue offered all the delegates security guarantee, and that meeting was billed to be the last chance of preventing all-out War.
The accord finally broke down because of differences in interpretation on both sides. This led to the outbreak of the War. Markets and places of worship were not spared from bombings and strafing. As a matter of fact, one of my domestic staffs lost her mother in one of the market bombings. She was hurt by shrapnel; she bled to death since medical facilities were scarce. The effect of the War on the State of Biafra was deplorable.
The Government of Nigeria is vehemently opposed to the name Biafra. Many point to the fact that Biafrans have never been re-integrated. The basis for unity no longer exists. Biafrans struggle for their survival without depending on anyone.
Since the Nigerian Government has refused absolutely to accept Biafrans as a part of Nigeria, it stands to reason that they should be allowed to go separately and develop on their own at their own pace. It is pertinent to mention that the north contributes little, rather resources from southern Nigeria are controlled and squandered by northern politicians.
“There’s so much unrest which stems from oppression, square pegs are placed in round holes indeed. Almost all of Nigeria’s intractable problems emanate from the imposition of candidates during elections, there have been no free and fair or credible elections. The situation gets worse with every election. In the first place, the constitution under which elections are held is a fraud. Far from being the “People’s Constitution” in a simple sense of democracy, we have faced these mistakes since the inception of the presidential system of governance in Nigeria. The system under reference is wasteful, encourages corruption and dictatorial tendencies,” she precisely alleged in an interview with IDN.
In an early July IDN interview with the President of the Congress of Igbo Leaders in the UK and Ireland, Mazi Obi Okoli, said that Nigeria has lots of challenges in implementing a system of governance that will guarantee the interests of all within the nation.
According to him, many of the problems, frictions and issues faced today in Nigeria are a direct result of the flawed federal system, the 1979 constitution drafted without consultation and the negative attitudes by the majority of politicians toward development in Nigeria.
The negative dimensions and conditions of ethnic minority alienation and discontent in the federation has been indeed made worse under the present regime, and further tightening of the noose continues unabated.
Therefore, the interpretation and connectivity of ethnicity with the federal system of governance is that of resultant inherent contradictions and tensions in the evolution and operation of the Nigerian federal system.
Many of the problems, frictions and issues faced today in Nigeria are a direct result of the flawed federal system; the problematic 1979 constitution drafted without consultation and the negative under-developmental attitude of the Nigerian politicians.
It has been made worse by the over-centralization of the governance system, the primitive refusal to recognize the complex ethnic configuration and interest. Furthermore, the pragmatic consensual underdevelopment of some regions, especially the Eastern part of the country, the relatively limited development of accommodative, consensual or power-sharing mechanisms, the absence or weakness of key mediatory or regulatory institutions, and the repeated distortion and abortion of democratic institutions. With the above administrative defects, it will be difficult for the nation to progress in contemporary times and be able to compete with other developing nations of the world.
As a matter of facts, Ambassador Uche Ajulu-Okeke, a veteran Diplomat and Development Studies Expert with thirty-years working experience in the Nigerian Foreign Service, explained to IDN from the United States, that “the present-day Federal Republic of Nigeria, several years after its independence, the leaders have not succeeded in rebuilding its state institutions enough to reflect all-inclusive ethnic diversity. Let alone in adopting Western-style democracy that takes cognizance of different public opinions on development issues in the country. The struggle for and misuse of power have brought an absolute stalemate, disrupting any efforts to overcome the deepening economic and social crisis in the country.”
Besides, she tellingly maintains that “several challenges exist, the first of which is a coercive alien hostile occupation of our homeland which have severally subjected Igbo Women to rape, ravaging their homes and farmlands, decapitating their husbands and children and sources of traditional rural livelihoods. Widespread poverty, unemployment and unemployable skill remain a major challenge. State endorsed occupation of large portions of rural and village communal lands by hostile alien Jihadists have hampered the ability of women to provide for their families as supportive income earners.”
With the prevailing socio-economic climate and the steadily dwindling economic fortunes and hostile stance of the Government towards the entrepreneurial endeavour of Easterners, the future is bleak for women and youth. The only glimpse of hope in the horizon is a fallback to the age-old traditional practice of nurtured apprenticeship has been the bulwark of survival and sustenance in the face of the current existential threat facing Easterners.
The situation in the region is dire depicting a derelict lack of infrastructure widespread unemployment, insecurity and youth hopelessness. As a result of decades of State endorsed systemic exclusion since the end of the Civil War, Easterners have found themselves at the brink of socio-economic extermination and had to pull themselves up by sheer perseverance and dint of effort resulting in disenchantment with Nigeria and massive migration to new diasporas and abroad.
As Nigeria is persistently engulfed with so many challenges and problems, so it requires a systematic well-defined approach in order to overcome them: Nepotism at all levels and institutions of Government. Morbid corruption. Endemic kleptocracy. Ethnic cleansing and persecution of Christians and ethnic capture of the military and security apparatus of the State.
The current entrapment of Biafra within the British Nigeria contraption prevents the actualization of its investment and development potential in all ramifications. This is why the Easterners want to delink from this entrapped arrangement called Nigeria. In the face of years of criminal neglect by Nigeria and a firm footing in the Diaspora, Biafra’s emancipation and development will be the Eighth Wonder of the World.
In Ajulu-Okeke’s logical analysis, the way forward in restoring nationalities and bringing sustainable peace and development to the beleaguered peoples of Biafra is through the conduct of plebiscites that will afford the indigenous nationalities the inalienable right to choose how they are governed. The juxtaposition of ancient nationalities with incompatible values presently held together by a coercive military decree in centrist top-down military format federations, fundamental regional autonomies should return to the truly democratic constitution and holding of self-determination autonomy plebiscites for all indigenous nationalities will usher in sustainable development and peace.
According to international organizations, Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, and the seventh most populous in the world, with an estimated 195.9 million inhabitants as of late 2019. Nigeria has the third-largest youth population in the world, after China and India with more than 90 million of its population under the age of eighteen.
Nigeria has the largest economy in Africa and is the world’s 24th largest economy. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates, worth more than $500 billion and $1 trillion in terms of nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and purchasing power parity, respectively. Nigeria is a federal republic comprising 36 states, with the capital located in Abuja. The country is located in West Africa bordering Niger in the north, Chad in the northeast, Cameroon in the east and Benin in the west. Its southern coast is on the Gulf of Guinea in the Atlantic Ocean.
By Blaise Udunze
Daily, the world watches Nigeria through a familiar lens in what appears to be a gory situation. Especially in cases when the news headlines tell stories of farmer-herder clashes, bandit attacks, kidnappings, villages reduced to ashes or deserted by the dwellers, as thousands of Nigerians have been displaced across states such as Zamfara, Plateau, Benue, Niger, Kaduna and Nasarawa. Subliminally, this is about to become a similarly ugly occurrence in southwestern Nigeria, which is fast becoming obvious if not nipped in the bud quickly.
Recorded data have shown that bandits, Boko Haram, and others killed over 190,000 Nigerians in 17 years and displaced 3.7 million people.
A human rights organisation, the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety), in its fearful revelation, has said that no fewer than 190,150 Nigerians have been killed by bandits, Boko Haram insurgents, and suspected armed herdsmen between July 2009 and March 19, 2026, as this calls for concern.
The dominant explanations often point to ethnic tensions, religious divisions, climate change, shrinking grazing routes or weak security institutions. No doubt, those factors are certainly part of Nigeria’s complex security crisis. Yet another question deserves serious examination.
What if, in some locations, the violence is also serving another purpose? What if some of the territories experiencing repeated displacement are the same places sitting atop some of Nigeria’s most valuable mineral deposits? More importantly, if such a pattern exists, who benefits when communities disappear?
Of a truth, these questions are uncomfortable, but undeniably they deserve careful investigation rather than dismissal.
For ages, Nigeria has been naturally endowed, and it is estimated to be rich in enormous significant reserves of gold, lithium, uranium, tin, columbite and other strategic minerals increasingly sought after in the global transition to clean energy technologies. As international demand for battery minerals continues to rise, these resources have become far more valuable than they were only a decade ago.
If one overlays publicly available geological information with maps showing persistent violence, some observers argue that striking geographical overlaps appear in several regions. Such overlaps alone cannot establish causation. Correlation is not proof of conspiracy. However, they raise questions worthy of independent scrutiny.
One issue attracting increasing attention and adequately yearns for answer is whether prolonged insecurity may inadvertently or deliberately create conditions that make mineral extraction easier.
Under Nigeria’s Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act 2007, mineral resources belong to the Federal Government, while mining rights are granted through licences and leases. Community engagement and land access are expected to form part of the licensing process, although implementation varies depending on circumstances. This raises an important policy question.
What happens when the communities expected to participate in those processes have already fled because of violence?
Displacement changes the dynamics of land ownership, consent and access. While no evidence automatically proves that attacks are orchestrated to facilitate mining, the sequence of violence followed by renewed commercial activity in some locations deserves closer examination by regulators, lawmakers and investigative journalists.
In conflict studies, researchers have long observed that wars often generate economic winners alongside humanitarian losers. Could elements of Nigeria’s insecurity also be producing economic beneficiaries?
Reports over the years have documented concerns about illegal mining operations across parts of northern Nigeria. Government agencies themselves have repeatedly acknowledged that criminal networks profit from the country’s vast mineral wealth. The unresolved question is whether isolated criminality has, in some instances, evolved into more sophisticated alliances involving political influence, financial interests and international supply chains. If so, the implications extend far beyond Nigeria.
Invariably, it is clearly known that lithium has become one of the world’s most strategic commodities, powering electric vehicle batteries and renewable energy storage systems. Gold has always remained one of the safest global investment assets during periods of uncertainty. Meanwhile, it is well confirmed that the global appetite for these minerals creates enormous financial incentives.
Suppose violent displacement reduces resistance to extraction. Suppose shell companies subsequently acquire mining interests. Suppose minerals then leave Nigeria through legitimate-looking export documentation while their true value remains understated.
These scenarios remain allegations unless supported by verifiable evidence. Yet they outline a framework that investigators may wish to test rather than ignore. Financial crime experts frequently identify trade mis-invoicing as one of the most common methods of illicit financial flows worldwide.
Could Nigeria’s solid minerals sector be vulnerable to similar practices? If valuable lithium ore is deliberately but inaccurately described as lower-value material on export documents, substantial wealth could potentially leave the country without reflecting its true market value. Likewise, if unrefined gold exits through privileged channels with limited scrutiny, questions naturally arise about oversight, transparency and accountability over criminal activities which have continued to stunt and disrupt the country’s socio-economic growth and at the same time cause carnage.
Such possibilities are not accusations against any particular institution or company. Rather, they illustrate why stronger monitoring systems are increasingly essential. Another question concerns logistics.
With the high level of criminal activities, industrial mining requires heavy machinery, diesel supplies, transportation networks and specialised personnel. These are not operations that can remain invisible indefinitely.
If certain territories are genuinely too dangerous for security agencies, how do industrial-scale extraction activities reportedly continue in some remote locations? If they do, who protects those operations? Who authorises their movement? Who verifies what is extracted? Who ensures royalties and export revenues reach public coffers? These are governance questions that demand institutional answers.
Equally important is the international dimension. Minerals extracted in Nigeria ultimately enter global supply chains. Gold may pass through international refining hubs before entering financial markets. Lithium may become part of battery manufacturing destined for electric vehicles, which are being sold across Europe, North America and Asia.
One known fact is that consumers purchasing products containing these minerals rarely know the full story of where they originated.
Increasingly, however, investors and governments are demanding ethical sourcing standards that trace minerals from extraction to final manufacture.
A critical factor that must be taken into cognisance is that if insecurity is creating opportunities for illegal or unethical extraction anywhere in the world, multinational companies have responsibilities alongside national governments, of which the onus falls on the Nigerian government.
Transparency cannot stop at the mine gate. Nor should accountability end at national borders. Another issue requiring attention concerns beneficial ownership.
Across many jurisdictions, shell companies can obscure the identities of individuals ultimately controlling commercial assets. If politically exposed persons or powerful business interests are hidden behind complex corporate structures registered offshore, identifying beneficiaries becomes significantly more difficult. This challenge is hardly unique to Nigeria.
Findings showed that from Latin America to Central Africa and Southeast Asia, resistant corporate networks have frequently complicated efforts to combat corruption and illicit resource extraction. That is precisely why open corporate registries, beneficial ownership databases and transparent mining licence disclosures are becoming global governance priorities. For Nigeria, the stakes could hardly be higher.
The country stands at the centre of the world’s emerging critical minerals economy. The Nigerian government can’t feign ignorance of the fact that, when handled transparently, these resources could finance infrastructure, education, healthcare, and industrial development for generations.
In no way would the government claim not knowing that when handled poorly, they risk becoming another chapter in the well-documented “resource curse,” where extraordinary natural wealth coincides with persistent poverty, insecurity and institutional weakness.
The ultimate challenge, therefore, is not simply about mining. It is about governance. It is about whether public institutions possess both the independence and capacity to ensure that natural resources benefit citizens rather than narrow interests. It is about whether conflict zones receive genuine peacebuilding efforts instead of becoming forgotten frontiers. And it is about whether international markets demand accountability with the same enthusiasm they demand raw materials.
None of these questions should be answered through speculation. They require rigorous investigations, forensic financial analysis, satellite imagery, mining license audits, customs records, beneficial ownership disclosures and courageous journalism.
They require governments willing to open their books. They require international cooperation capable of tracing money across borders. Most importantly, they require asking questions that have too often remained unasked.
Perhaps Nigeria’s security crisis is exactly what it appears to be: a tragic convergence of historical grievances, weak institutions, criminality and environmental pressures. Or perhaps, in some places, another layer of economic incentive deserves closer scrutiny.
Until those questions are thoroughly investigated, one possibility will continue to linger. Maybe the world’s attention has been fixed on the blood spilt above ground, while too little attention has been paid to the extraordinary wealth lying beneath it.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: bl***********@***il.com
Feature/OPED
What Does Nigeria’s $51bn Reserves Milestone Mean if Most New Foreign Money Can Leave Quickly?
Nigeria’s foreign reserves have climbed to about $51 billion, a decade-plus high, according to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). EBC Financial Group (EBC) notes that this reflects stronger investor confidence, but the second half may show whether it holds, as the build rests on three cyclical drivers: oil earnings, short-term foreign money and a narrowing official-to-street naira gap.
Reserves rose from about $32 billion in April 2024, during a dollar shortage, to about $51 billion now, near the CBN’s target. Much came from two cyclical sources, strong oil earnings and money chasing high-yielding naira assets, so EBC expects the pace to slow or reverse. Fitch Ratings, a major international credit rating agency, expects a marginal decline to about $47 billion by the end of 2026, citing higher spending and external pressures.
David Precious, Senior Market Analyst at EBC Financial Group, said, “Nigeria’s reserve build is real but may not be durable yet, because nearly all of the new money is the kind that can leave quickly. Of the $10.37 billion that came in over the first quarter, the overwhelming majority was short-term portfolio funds rather than long-term investment, so a shift in oil prices, global interest rates or confidence in the naira might pull a large part of it straight back out.”
Most New Money Can Still Leave Quickly
The composition of the foreign inflows explains the caution over how long the build can last. The country attracted $10.37 billion in foreign investment in the first quarter of 2026, up 83.83 per cent year-on-year, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Of that, $9.86 billion or 95.09 per cent, was portfolio money, largely short-term naira debt such as Treasury bills that investors can sell at the next auction, while foreign direct investment, the long-term kind that builds factories and jobs, was $135.08 million, or 1.30 per cent. Put simply, of each dollar coming in, about 95 cents can leave quickly, and barely one cent stays.
That money supports reserves while it stays. Dollars brought in to buy naira assets add to market supply, letting the CBN hold more reserves and steady the naira. It leaves when conditions change. Nigeria earns most of its export dollars from oil and gas, so lower oil prices mean fewer dollars, and as a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), it cannot simply produce more, output capped by quota and reduced by theft and ageing fields. Higher global interest rates draw money toward safer returns abroad, and a weakening naira prompts investors to sell early. When oil fell in 2016 and 2020, foreign investors withdrew and could not convert naira to dollars as supply dried up, leaving the CBN to clear more than $7 billion in trapped obligations into 2024.
The Oil Boost is No Longer Certain
Oil looked like a dependable source of the dollars behind the reserves only months ago. Earlier in 2026, concern over disruption around the Strait of Hormuz lifted crude prices, and stronger receipts flowed in, with crude oil export earnings of $8.11 billion in the first quarter in the CBN’s balance-of-payments data. That support is now easing. The tension has subsided, and Brent traded near $72 on June 29, down about 24 per cent over the month, back to pre-conflict levels. With the price boost gone and output constrained, reserves are more exposed, leaning on non-oil earnings and investor patience rather than oil.
The Naira Still Trades at Two Prices
The naira has traded at two prices, an official rate and a higher parallel-market rate, and closing that gap into one trusted price is what many investors might watch most. Before committing funds, they may want assurance they can convert naira to dollars at a fair rate when they exit, and a wide gap revives the fear of being trapped that lingers from earlier shortages. The gap has narrowed to roughly N20 to N30, with the CBN’s official rate near N1,380 per dollar on June 26 against parallel-market quotes around N1,400. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) 2026 Article IV review urged Nigeria to depend less on this fast-moving portfolio money and to keep phasing out its multiple exchange-rate practices. The CBN’s Foreign Exchange Manual, in force from 1 June, is intended to make the market clearer, though such rules build confidence only once investors can freely trade dollars at the posted rate.
What could Make the Build Durable
A few signs that may show the build turning durable include a smaller gap between the official and street naira rates, more long-term foreign investment, and steadier oil earnings. A gap that stays small, now roughly N20 to N30, may mean investors trust the official rate and no longer need the street market. A clear rise in foreign direct investment, only $135 million last quarter against $9.86 billion of short-term money, might mean lasting capital is replacing funds that can leave at the next auction. Oil earnings that hold up, rather than sliding from the low $70s, should help keep reserves steady, since oil and gas bring in most of Nigeria’s export dollars.
“Reserves built on money chasing high yields can fall as fast as they rose, as they did after the last two oil shocks, when investors left, and the CBN spent years clearing a foreign-exchange backlog,” Precious added. “What holds through a downturn is slower money, direct investment, steady oil and non-oil export earnings and one credible naira rate, and that is the shift Nigeria has yet to make.”
By Olajumoke Bello
Across Nigeria, small and medium enterprises remain the backbone of economic activity. They drive trade, create jobs, and sustain millions of livelihoods. Yet, despite their importance, many SMEs continue to operate below their full potential due to persistent structural challenges.
Access to finance remains one of the most cited constraints. However, the issue today goes beyond the availability of capital. Many businesses struggle with financial readiness, weak documentation, and limited understanding of what lenders require. This often leads to missed opportunities, even when funding options exist.
At the same time, SMEs face gaps in market access and visibility. Business owners operate in highly localised environments, with limited exposure to broader networks that can unlock partnerships, new markets, and growth opportunities. This isolation can constrain scalability and reduce long-term competitiveness.
Equally important is the capability gap. Many entrepreneurs grow through resilience and experience but lack structured knowledge on critical areas such as financial management, export readiness, and digital adoption. Without this, even well-capitalised businesses can struggle to sustain growth.
These challenges point to a clear need for a more practical and integrated approach to SME support. It is no longer sufficient to offer standalone solutions. SMEs require ecosystems that combine knowledge, access, and direct engagement in ways that reflect how they actually operate.
A key shift is the move from centralised interventions to localised engagement. SMEs are deeply influenced by their immediate environments, whether markets, industrial clusters, or trade corridors. Solutions must therefore be brought closer to where these businesses function, allowing for more relevant support and stronger relationships.
Another important shift is from awareness to action. Business owners do not only need information; they need insights that they can apply immediately. This includes understanding how to structure their finances, how to access trade opportunities, and how to connect with the right partners to scale their operations.
There is also a growing need for continuity. Many SME-focused initiatives deliver strong initial impact but lack follow-through. For support to be effective, it must extend beyond one-off engagements into sustained relationships, with clear pathways for onboarding, advisory, and growth.
For financial institutions, this presents both responsibility and an opportunity. Supporting SMEs now requires moving beyond transactional banking to deeper partnership models. It requires understanding businesses at a granular level and co-creating solutions that evolve with their needs.
At Stanbic IBTC, this perspective continues to shape our approach to SME development. Our focus is on delivering practical support that translates into real business outcomes, helping enterprises grow, compete, and contribute more meaningfully to the economy.
As part of this commitment, we are extending our SME engagement to the regions through the Nigeria Business Summit Regional Tour. The tour will take structured, on-ground activations into key commercial hubs, where SMEs can access funding guidance, trade insights, advisory support, and direct engagement with financial experts.
The regional tour will take place across five strategic locations, bringing these solutions closer to business owners in Aba, Onitsha, Ibadan and Kano.
This approach reflects an important principle. When support moves closer to businesses and when solutions are delivered in ways that are practical and continuous, SMEs are better positioned to grow sustainably. In turn, this strengthens not only individual enterprises but the broader economy.
Olajumoke Bello is the Head of Enterprise Banking at Stanbic IBTC Bank
