Feature/OPED
Oliver Fejiro, Journalist Of Many Lies Against Delta State Government
By Ephraim Okwuosa
In any credible democratic setting, it is elementary knowledge that a journalist is at liberty to think, decide and write on what is believed to be independent opinion on an issue that is topical or of common interest.
However, it is also low in logic and intellect for any journalist to assume that the right of free expression is a license to convey baseless, superfluous and reckless aspersions against some persons or group.
Indeed, any journalist that assumes such an exclusive preserve to create improper and unfair remarks without just, rational and legitimate basis is huge joke and disaster to professional journalism.
Unfortunately, the tendency of few journalists to misuse the seeming unbridled license extended to the practice of journalism is enormous minus for this honourable profession. This self-styled journalism of advancing skewed motives and biased reporting is quite evident in this era of new media where it has become a common practice to publish articles without thorough investigation.
Most of the time, this minority set of writers in their attempt to tarnish the reputation and dignity of their targets for self-interest, write scurrilous articles with conclusions that not only impute partiality but covey improper motives. Sadly, such reports are converse to tolerable standards in the conduct of proper journalism in Nigeria.
A telling example of such media negativity is found in a recent article, titled ‘Gov Okowa, Goodbye to Second Term’ by one Fejiro Oliver which was published in many online media. The write up which ought to have conveyed views that should provide credible reasons why the incumbent Governor Okowa of Delta State does not deserve a second term deviated entirely from readers’ expectation. Rather it dwelled on an unconnected but sensitive issue relating to Delta state Governor’s unwillingness to go the usual old way of sharing money amongst politicians and supposed friends including the writer, Fejiro.
Frankly put, it would not have even mattered whether or not the views expressed in the article are in favour or against Governor Okowa as it is a moral task of any responsible citizen in a democratic setting to hold their elected leadership accountable and critique or interrogate their policies which are considered bad.
Unfortunately, the article on prediction of 2019 Delta governorship elections is a far departure from constructive analysis on Governor Okowa’s performance or inadequacy in government.
That Oliver Fejiro’s article did not contain any meaningful deconstruction of the efforts or otherwise of the Delta State government is not strange but remains very disturbing and misleading in this modern era where readers reach conclusions based on newspaper opinions.
The write up which did not offer readers any genuine basis for judgement is best regarded as a work of fiction and deliberate attempt to advance deception through journalism. According to the writer’s comments on Governor Okowa, “As a governor, he’s extremely nice and dedicated to work. He has the heart of gold to deliver prosperity to Deltans.
He has the desire to truly make Delta the hub of industrialization and a commercial city of repute, but unfortunately swallowed by unseen hands that manipulate him”.
These remarks on Governor Okowa are very conflicting, self-contradicting and may not even call for any meaningful argument on the topic.
Unequivocally, from this singular narrative, it is obvious that the writer’s major focus was certainly not do any honest analysis on the Okowa’s administration or on what it portends for the people of Delta state but to pour a baggage of criticisms on the aides of the Governor.
In fact, it is very twisty, crude and unrefined for any responsible journalist to describe a Governor as good, yet openly stimulate fears into him that he is carrying burning coals in his hands because money is not being shared to persons termed political supporters.
Granted that in a democracy, it is the right of any person to express personal views on issues but from additional comments in Fejiro’s article, the substance in his allegations against Governor Okowa’s aides is of little value to good governance and appraisal of an administration’s performance.
Actually, If the real intent of the article was to embarrass and infuse confusion in the minds of the public about Delta State Government’s estimation, then the writer foundered on his weak ability to find quality logic and proof.
His introduction of half-truths that have no relevance to evaluating Okowa’s governance clearly buttresses the assumption that the assessment of Governor Okowa’s leadership was not a major interest.
Specifically, Fejiro’s political write up which lays great emphasis on Governor Okowa’s defiance to ‘share the money’ after his claim of personal meeting in which he proffered suggestions that have not been implemented probably for Delta State resources to be transferred to individual pockets of politicians and appointees is not only dubious, wicked but exposes his myopic and selfish interest which does not serve common good.
Fejiro’s lack of understanding that it is no longer business as usual is because he may not possess an analytical mind to do a simple analysis of the Delta State troubling financial situation nor can he understand that the nation’s recession era has a direct proportionate impact on the State’s revenue especially in the period where militant activities have affected oil derivation revenue and by extension resources of Delta State Oil Producing Areas Development Commission, DELSOPADEC’ which he mentioned has been deprived of appropriate funding.
The question herein, is what nature of development one should expect without cessation of violence.
In fact, Fejiro’s engagement in journalism based on distortion of facts to advance non-objective criticisms is very unacceptable. The writer’s spotlighting of Governor Okowa’s aides whom from several accounts refused to recognise him as a credible journalist or patronize his demands is outright blackmail and extortion on the part of Fejiro.
This was even affirmed by the writer in his remarks on his interaction with the Delta State Commissioner for Economic Planning, Kingsley Emu whom he mocked and adjudged as being a mediocre in politics for the disclosure that ‘the governor has blocked the loopholes through which funds are siphoned’. Perhaps, this private discussion could have taken place when Fejiro went soliciting for financial support.
Besides the above postulations and facts, truly, if Fejiro was of stable mind, he would have known that there would be historical obstacles to his career in the type of journalism he practices. The point herein is that if he thinks that time would have healed his self-inflicted wounds or blocked our memory on his past misdeeds, he has certainly failed on such assumptions by his quick return to public forum of controversy.
In fact, any time I read stories by Oliver Fejiro, I wonder at his claims of being an investigative reporter without an intrinsic probing mind and knack for details.
If really, investigative journalism were to be all about engaging in loose reporting ethics and blackmail, then Fejiro is on a good track.
Otherwise, he may just be counted as one of those that integrity means little to and would at any slight opportunity use such a title of investigative journalist to advance sinister motivations.
Indeed, it is actually shocking that Fejiro forgets that when he writes and publishes on new media, his old articles are readily available for review and critique. Indeed, after reading some of his previous articles where he praised the actions of Governor Okowa and his aides, my guess now is that his initial idea was to pretentiously promote the government with the expectation that so much millions of naira will be tossed in his pocket.
Obviously, when this ploy did not yield immediate harvest, he reverted to his plan B by terming Governor Okowa “a promise and fail politician” and began to attack the many aides of Governor. Unfortunately, for him, these aides may be more clever than he had rated them as they have little or no respect for him given his ugly antecedent of failed attempt at extorting the former Governor of Niger State, Babangida Aliyu, an incident which was foiled by the gallant officers of the Department of State Services and was widely reported in National news media.
From all superior logic, Fejiro cannot be regarded as an asset to credible media and journalism in Nigeria.
Certainly, he is not the everyday journalist that is satisfied with “thank you for coming’ brown envelop even in all its dishonourable forms. Rather, he runs a media outfit a.k.a ‘Secret Reporters’ which he purports conducts investigative journalism but in reality it is a phony scheme with a special agenda that is alleged to be a first class brand of blackmailers which not only churns out negative stories but manufactures lies to make them look like truth against individuals he has marked out for extortion.
That the aides of a governor are not collaborating with a particular journalist cannot be termed a political negative against such a Governor but Fejiro definitely feels different on this and he is entitled to his opinion. Nevertheless, from every good judgement and wisdom, it is easy to decipher that there is a bit more to Fejiro’s motivation in journalism. Particularly, his remarks that some persons in Delta State are not happy probably because money is not being distributed, suggests that Fejiro must be seen as he is, a nagging worry for more money. His deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt to bring down the image of the Governor in the estimation of the public because of self-aggrandizement is quite disappointing too.
Any credible journalist should be aware of the diminished economic situation in Delta state as an oil producing State but to Fejiro, everything else is less important including the Governor’s attempt in tackling the high levels of poverty and ensuring equity through the new job creation initiative, improved security, construction of link roads in all sections of the State, appointment of political appointees across the state, facilitation of visible major socio-economic development, struggle to ensure monthly salary are paid to oversized sixty thousand civil servants, bridging gap in communication with the governed through establishment of a very vibrant Orientation Directorate and credible efforts to sustain on-going economic empowerment of youths and women. In truth, if Fejiro was not blinded by falsehoods, he would have noticed that all these bear testament to the quality leadership of his state Governor that operates with less than a third of monthly revenue earned by his predecessors.
In any case, such achievements remain a visible chapter in the Governor Okowa’s less than two years stay in office and are signposts of developments ahead.
Specifically, on Fejiro’s ranting on Governor Okowa’s appointment his personal aides from his region, I doubt if any politician will resist the temptation to do what is needful provided it does not affect the even distribution of major appointments across the State.
Fejiro’s reference on alleged payment of two billion naira for Asaba airport safety enhancement by the State Government is false.
In fact, from this it is obvious that Fejiro is a man that is comfortable with conflicts and engages in a spiral of distortion of facts.
Perhaps, this could have been his reason for stating that a project which is contractor financed through a bank guarantee and under the direct supervision of certified experts by the Nigerian Aviation Authorities has been paid for.
Again, his analysis on Delta Sports Commission is clear exhibition of ignorance because what the former Governor Uduaghan disbursed as monthly grant to the Commission through his in law, Amaju Pinnik which Fejiro referenced to as a performer is more than what the present leadership of the same Sports Commission has collected in the past one year despite the fact that it being headed by Tony Okowa, a seasoned politician and brother of Governor Okowa.
This is where it is expected that the fundamental action for Governor Okowa’s media aides should be to call for an end to Fejiro’s impunity and engagement in falsehood by providing credible evidence to counter Fejiro’s many lies especially given that a lie becomes truth when it is repeated without objection.
From Fejiro’s antecedent, he appears like a man trapped in a lazy world of blackmailers that use the media to persuade people to think and behave in a certain manner that will ensure that money is disbursed to him. Indeed, his style of journalism not only makes a caricature of many credible unbiased media outfits that erroneously publish his lies but creates anxiety in the minds of the reading people on the quality and integrity of Nigerian journalism.
The only comfort herein, is that Fejiro’s practice of journalism will in little or no time be crushed by greed and selfishness.
Fejiro’s unceasing desire to write Okowa’s government to tatters with a plethora of half-truths cannot change the reality in Delta State recent improvements.
In truth, Ifeanyi Okowa may not really be an angel in politics because it is calling where angels don’t thrive, however, he remains a man that stands head and shoulders above his predecessors given his leadership style and work done with minimal resources.
For now, let the leadership in Delta State remain focused and undistracted by Fejiro’s tricks as 2019 elections will confirm the veracity of claims in favour or against Governor Okowa.
Dr Ephraim Okwuosa is the co-ordinator, Anti-Corruption Advocates, Area 11, Garki, Abuja
By Shmuel Ja’Mba Abm
In a report filed by The Business Standard on August 8, 2026, India, the current BRICS chair, opposes a proposal for a common currency to counter the US dollar.
The Indian Commerce Minister, Piyush Goyal, told reporters in Jaipur, Rajasthan, northwestern India, after a two-day BRICS trade and industry meeting, that India was not in favour of a BRICS currency. He added that India did not support the introduction of any such BRICS currency scheme.
It is good these things are showing signs at this early stage of attempts by BRICS member countries to crystallise a research finding published by a British economist at Goldman Sachs, Jim O’Neil, in 2001.
None of the leaders and country members of BRICS ever conceived on record the formation of such an economic or political bloc until the research publication, which spurred leaders of the mentioned countries to marshal resources and begin a dialogue of formalisation.
The current membership that started involuntarily with just Brazil, Russia, India, and China as a concept published by a research economist, that later included South Africa, now has 10 members – Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia.
Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam are designated partner countries that participate in framework meetings without full voting rights.
Originally, the publication by Jim O’Neil wasn’t intended or proposed as a vehicle for the political grouping that has drawn the attention of the rest of the world, as mentioned members took a step further from the appraisal or assessment paper to coalesce into a political force overflowing its original boundaries today.
For the above reasons, the initial step of early contacts was to take advantage of things in common in member countries for the stimulation of economic growth and global prosperity. At that stage, suspicions were managed, and plans didn’t consider historical political differences and disagreements as grounds for suspicion or discontinuation of cooperation.
Of course, China and India had trust issues over decades of border disputes. And in the early stages of heightened escalations of the Russian-Ukrainian relationship when India offered to mediate and broker for ceasefire and eventual peace, Russia wasn’t sceptical but took steps to host the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi.
But at the back of the mind of the Russian-Indian relationship, history was revealing about betrayals, especially after what the country endured in assassinations of leading members of the Indian National Congress, that killed Indira Gandhi and swept her son, Rajiv Gandhi, and thereafter ravaged the family dynasty with threats of violence.
These paved the way for the emergence of the Bharatiya Janata Party, a Hindu nationalist party, and its leader, Narendra Modi. The BJP is not directly responsible for the intimidation and violent campaign against the INC, a close former Soviet-era ally of Russia, but a beneficiary. There are grounds to suspect a frosty relationship with Russia, although concealed in diplomatic niceties and global market dynamics of cross-border business and trade.
India turned into the redistribution hub of Russian discounted grains and oil supplies as a third country, after sanctions were imposed on Russia in what Russia described as demilitarisation and denazification special operations in Ukraine.
India is considered by Western powers as a democracy. It was once a British colony, gaining independence on August 15, 1947. It is also a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. On a normal day, it doesn’t add or take away anything. But under these circumstances, these are serious factors to consider in arriving at a decision.
Be it as it may, China and Russia have found their way out in world trade, bypassing SWIFT. China operates the Cross-border Inter-bank Payment System, whilst Russia is running the System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS). India has IMPS and NEFT. In principle, these payment systems bypass SWIFT and the US dollar, nonetheless.
As the world waits to hear India back its dissenting views with supporting facts, world trade will never remain the same again.
Shmuel Ja’Mba Abm has extensive scholarly publications that establish him as a leading academic expert in regional geopolitical dynamics and diplomatic relations in Africa. Author of e-monographs on geopolitics, ethnic conflicts, and political philosophy.
Feature/OPED
What Dangote’s Reported $40bn Private-Placement Valuation Could Mean for Nigerian Investors, NGX
Dangote Petroleum Refinery could become an unusually large part of Nigeria’s stock market if its eventual IPO valuation is close to the roughly $40 billion implied by a recent private placement.
EBC Financial Group (EBC) highlights that this would value the refinery at about N54.63 trillion, using the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Nigerian Foreign Exchange Market rate of N1,365.6856 per USD on August 7. Against the N158.513 trillion value of companies listed on the Nigerian Exchange (NGX) on the same date, adding the refinery at that value would produce a market worth about N213.14 trillion, with Dangote Refinery accounting for 25.6%.
This scenario assumes the full $40 billion equity value is reflected in NGX market capitalisation and other listed company values remain unchanged. At that size, movements in the company could become highly visible across the Nigerian equity market, although its actual influence on NGX indices may depend on the shares available for public trading and the relevant index rules.
David Precious, Senior Market Analyst at EBC Financial Group, said: “If Dangote Refinery entered the Nigerian Exchange at close to a $40 billion valuation, it could account for roughly one-quarter of the resulting NGX market value. If that valuation is difficult to support, few shares are available for public trading, or investors need to reduce other Nigerian holdings to participate, the effects could extend across Nigeria’s equity market, including existing NGX-listed companies and their shareholders.”
A Private Transaction Can Indicate Value, but Public Investors Need Financial Evidence
Based on the private transaction, $40 billion provides an indication of Dangote Refinery’s value, but it does not establish the eventual IPO price. Details published on August 4 said a $2.5 billion private placement for a 6% stake implied a valuation of roughly $40 billion. The proposed initial public offering (IPO) was reported to target about $5 billion, while the eventual IPO valuation and percentage offered to the public were not disclosed. This is important as a private transaction may produce a different valuation from the price a broad group of public investors is prepared to accept.
For context, public equity market values cited alongside the transaction were about $12 billion for Türkiye’s Tupras and $16 billion for US-listed HF Sinclair. The Dangote figure is about 3.3 times Tupras and 2.5 times HF Sinclair. They are not direct comparisons because profitability, debt, operations and growth plans differ. The gap nevertheless increases the need for audited earnings, cash flow, debt and investment plans that explain what supports the higher valuation.
The reported $5 billion fundraising target is equivalent to about N6.83 trillion at the August 7 exchange rate, or approximately 4.3% of the N158.513 trillion existing NGX market value. Proposed $5 billion raise. If new Nigerian or foreign money funds the offer, the pool of capital invested in Nigerian equities could expand. If investors sell current holdings to participate, capital could instead move away from other listed companies.
Publicly Tradable Shares and New Investment Could Shape the Wider Market Impact
NGX rules show why total company value does not tell investors how much stock they can actually trade. Main Board companies can qualify through either 20% public ownership held by at least 300 shareholders or publicly tradable shares worth at least N20 billion. The Premium Board value alternative is N40 billion. Holdings controlled by promoters, directors and close relatives, government, or strategic investors owning at least 5% are excluded from qualifying public shares.
This means a company worth tens of trillions of naira could still have a much smaller amount of stock available for regular trading if ownership remains concentrated. The key issue is therefore how much of Dangote Refinery becomes accessible to public investors and how widely those shares are held.
Regional investment could also affect the outcome. Details published on 4 August indicated engagement involving South Africa, Kenya, Egypt, Ghana and Rwanda, including possible Kenyan participation of up to $500 million, although no allocations were confirmed. The Johannesburg Stock Exchange separately said Dangote Group had shown strong intent to pursue a South African listing after Nigeria. Regional participation in the Nigerian offer could bring new capital directly into Nigerian equities. A later South African listing could broaden access but would not itself increase money raised through the Nigerian IPO.
Pension funds face the same question of capital allocation. The National Pension Commission (PenCom) waived the usual existence, profitability and dividend requirements so Pension Fund Administrators can consider the IPO, while retaining internal investment policies, risk-management requirements and duties to contributors and retirees. PenCom Circular on Dangote Refiner. PenCom states that the dispensation is exceptional, one-off and specific to this proposed IPO.
Pension funds held N5.907 trillion in domestic ordinary shares at the end of June, compared with the offer’s approximately N6.83 trillion equivalent. This does not imply pension funds would finance the offer. It shows why managers must consider exposure to one company and whether participation requires reducing other investments.
Precious added, “Dangote being listed could become a turning point for Nigeria’s equity market if it brings wider public ownership and additional African capital. Investors still need clear evidence supporting the valuation, clarity on how much of the company they can trade and an explanation of where the money raised will go. Those answers will determine whether the listing expands the Nigerian equity market or concentrates more investment around one company.”
An approved prospectus should clarify the valuation, shares offered, public ownership and use of proceeds. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said on June 23 that no IPO application had then been filed or approved and ordered unauthorised pre-marketing to stop. Details published on 4 August later said an IPO application had been submitted, with regulatory approval expected in the following weeks. Until final terms are disclosed, the test for Nigeria is whether the listing combines a supportable valuation with broad public ownership and genuinely additional investment.
Feature/OPED
Moving the Stablecoin Conversation From Hype to Utility in Africa’s Next Payments Evolution
By Rajat Mishra
For much of the past decade, discussions around stablecoins have been dominated by cryptocurrency speculation. Increasingly, however, stablecoins are emerging as practical financial infrastructure for moving money across borders, managing liquidity and improving payment efficiency.
The real opportunity lies not in choosing between traditional finance and digital assets, but in building an integrated financial ecosystem where both work together to improve efficiency, broaden financial access and deepen economic connectivity across the continent.
Despite significant advances in financial inclusion and digital payments, moving money across African borders remains far more difficult than it should be. Businesses continue to face challenges when making cross-border payments. Fragmented payment networks, multiple intermediaries, and lengthy settlement processes increase costs and create operational inefficiencies.
Remittance providers, the specialised financial services that millions rely on to send money home, face many of the same structural challenges. These providers play a critical role across the continent. In fact, 19 of Africa’s 54 countries receive remittance inflows equivalent to at least 4% of their GDP. Yet Africa remains the world’s most expensive region to send money to.
These challenges are not a reflection of remittance providers themselves, but of the fragmented banking and settlement infrastructure underpinning international money movement. Financial institutions must often manage liquidity across multiple disconnected currency markets while relying on complex correspondent banking networks and clearing systems. The result is higher costs, slower settlements, and capital that remains unnecessarily locked up.
One of the most immediate opportunities for stablecoins lies in improving cross-border settlement. Consider a Kenyan business importing goods from South Africa. Under traditional settlement models, payments often pass through multiple correspondent banking relationships, involve several foreign exchange conversions, and can take days before funds reach the intended recipient.
Stablecoin-enabled settlement rails have the potential to reduce much of this friction by enabling value to move more efficiently between financial institutions across markets. The result can be shorter settlement times, greater transparency and improved predictability for businesses operating across borders.
The benefits extend well beyond businesses. For millions of Africans working abroad, remittances remain a financial lifeline, helping families pay school fees, healthcare costs and daily living expenses. Yet sending money home often involves navigating a complex chain of money transfer operators, correspondent banks, and local payout partners, with each additional layer introducing costs and delays.
Stablecoins can help streamline the backend movement of funds between institutional participants, reducing settlement costs and improving efficiency across the value chain.
For end users, the advantage is simplicity. Recipients do not need to interact with, or even understand stablecoins directly. They continue to receive money through familiar, trusted channels, whether a local bank account or mobile money wallet, only faster and at a lower cost.
Beyond payments, stablecoins also address one of the less visible but most significant challenges in cross-border finance: liquidity management. Financial institutions operating across multiple markets must constantly ensure they have sufficient funds in the right currency, in the right jurisdiction and at the right time. Today, this often requires pre-funding accounts across multiple countries, a costly practice that traps large amounts of capital and limits financial flexibility.
Stablecoins introduce a new model for moving value across borders in near real time, enabling institutions to manage liquidity dynamically as demand arises. This can reduce the need for large pre-funded balances, improve treasury efficiency and free up capital that can be deployed more productively. Ultimately, these efficiencies can translate into faster settlements, lower costs, and better services for businesses and consumers alike.
However, the true value of stablecoins will not come from isolated blockchain networks operating independently of existing financial systems. Their long-term impact will depend on how effectively they integrate with banks, mobile money platforms, payment service providers and existing payment infrastructure. Interoperability will be critical to ensuring payment flows move seamlessly between systems, markets and currencies. The goal should be to strengthen and modernise today’s payment ecosystem, not replace it.
From experiment to infrastructure: what global moves are telling us
Some of the clearest signals that stablecoins are moving from experimentation to infrastructure are coming from card networks. Mastercard’s reported agreement to acquire BVNK, valued at up to $1.8 billion, points to a strategic investment in the settlement layer connecting stablecoin rails with traditional banking and reflects growing institutional confidence in stablecoin-enabled cross-border payments.
Visa’s expansion of stablecoin-backed cards through Stripe’s Bridge to more than 100 countries reflects a complementary strategy. Rather than acquiring infrastructure outright, Visa is leveraging its existing global network as the final distribution layer for stablecoin-funded payments.
The inclusion of African markets is particularly significant. It signals growing confidence that stablecoin-backed payment instruments can operate alongside, and in some cases complement, the mobile money ecosystems that already dominate wallet-based payments across much of the continent.
Taken together, these developments point to a broader shift. Card payment networks are moving from observing the stablecoin conversation to investing directly in the infrastructure that underpins it. For Africa, the implication is not that stablecoins will replace existing payment rails, but that success will increasingly belong to institutions capable of orchestrating multiple settlement rails – cards, bank transfers, mobile money and stablecoins- within a unified, interoperable ecosystem. Local market expertise, regulatory relationships and last-mile distribution will remain decisive competitive advantages.
Building for scale through trust and regulation
But despite their potential, stablecoins cannot operate outside the boundaries of regulated financial systems. Their long-term viability across Africa depends on clear regulatory frameworks, robust compliance standards and trusted infrastructure that supports transparency, risk management and consumer protection.
We are already seeing this evolution. In markets such as South Africa, institutions facilitating cross-border settlements must navigate increasingly sophisticated regulatory requirements, including approvals for certain offshore crypto-related activities. Globally, initiatives such as the OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) and expanded Travel Rule obligations are raising expectations around reporting, tax transparency and compliance.
These developments reinforce a simple reality: stablecoin infrastructure does not reduce compliance obligations. It raises the bar for governance, transparency and institutional risk management. The objective is not to bypass regulation, but to build interoperable payment systems that can innovate confidently within it.
From the edges to the plumbing
The stablecoin conversation is steadily moving beyond speculation and towards practical implementation. What once sat at the edges of the payments debate is becoming part of the plumbing of cross-border finance rather than a parallel system to it.
The question is no longer whether stablecoins have a role to play in payments. The question is where they deliver the greatest value. In Africa, that value is increasingly clear: faster settlement, improved liquidity efficiency and more connected cross-border commerce. The winners will not be those that replace existing financial systems, but those that successfully connect stablecoin rails with the banks, mobile money networks and payment providers that already power the continent’s economy.
For pan-African payment networks such as Onafriq, the priority is ensuring that emerging technologies complement the financial infrastructure businesses and consumers already trust, rather than introducing new layers of complexity.
The opportunity lies in connecting stablecoin settlement with banks, mobile money networks and payment providers, ensuring the benefits of this new infrastructure deliver tangible outcomes for African businesses and consumers.
Rajat Mishra is the CPO for Network Product & Deputy Group CPIO at Onafriq
