Feature/OPED
The Constitutionality of S. 396 (7) ACJA in Light of Provisions of Constitution
By Benita Ayo
Overview
This is a commentary on the paper presented by a learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Asiwaju Adegboyega Awomolo where he examines the issue of the vacuum created when a judge who is conducting a criminal trial is elevated to the Court of Appeal, as well as the conflict between the provisions of the constitution and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) when this situation arises.
With the aid of decided cases, he concluded that in this instance, an elevated judicial officer cannot continue to hear the matter because from the point of elevation, he/she lacks the requisite jurisdiction to do so.
According to him, the only resolution to the issue, is for the matter to be commenced ‘de novo’ before another judge having the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The said Section 396 (7) ACJA provides as follows;
“Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, A judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a high court Judge, only for the purpose of concluding any partly heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his elevation, and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time, provided that this section shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of a Court of Appeal.”
Now, Section 1 (1) and 1 (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides that;
“1(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation Republic of Nigeria.”
For purposes of clarity, its Section 1(3) goes further to state:
“1(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provision of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”
COMMENTS
The issues arising from the conflicts are;
- Jurisdiction of a Justice of the Court of Appeal to continue to sit over a matter at the State High Court
- The doctrine of the supremacy of the constitution (1999 as amended)
- Whether indeed, s. 396 (7) ACJA is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As amended)
- JURISDICTION OF A JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TO CONTINUE TO SIT OVER A MATTER AT THE STATE HIGH COURT.
Generally speaking, Jurisdiction means the official power to make legal decisions and judgments. It is also the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.
In FBN LTD v. ABRAHAM (2008) LPELR-1281 (SC), the Court defined jurisdiction thus, ‘What is the meaning of jurisdiction? By judicial authorities, jurisdiction is the authority by which a court has to decide matters that are laid before it for litigation or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. Let it be said that the limits of this authority are, by practice, imposed by statute or law under which the court is constituted. It may be extended or restricted by similar means. If no restriction is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited’.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court per OPUTA, JSC (Pp. 39-40, paras. C-A) has defined jurisdiction in the case of ONYEMA & ORS v. OPUTA & ANOR (1987) LPELR-2736 (SC) that; ‘It is thus necessary for the proper appreciation of the issues in this case to understand the concept and content of “jurisdiction”. Briefly stated jurisdiction as it applies to courts can mean one of two things:-
1. The abstract right of a court to exercise its powers in causes of a certain class, or
2. The right of a court or tribunal to exercise its powers with respect to a particular subject matter.
In one sense, the broader sense, jurisdiction refers to the legal authority, the legal capacity, to adjudicate at all; while in the narrower sense it refers to the power of the court over the particular subject matter in dispute, over the res or property in contest. This latter sense may be referred to, as territorial jurisdiction, or venue, or the area of authority – the geographical area beyond which the court’s power (or legal jurisdiction) is not to be extended.’
CLASSES/TYPES OF JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction may be any of the following;
- Territorial (This is the power or authority to preside over a particular location or venue e.g. the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over the entire territory of Nigeria but the State High Court only have jurisdiction over the state in which it is located)
- Subject matter (The authority to adjudicate over certain causes of action. An example is the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to preside over Admiralty matters and Issues bordering on the interpretation of the provisions of CAMA)
- Exclusive (This is the right to hear a matter to the exclusion of other courts e.g, the Supreme Court have exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters between the Federation and the State)
- Concurrent (This is where the right to hear a matter is shared between more than one court)
- Original (This is right to hear a matter before any other court. e.g, the Court of Appeal has original jurisdiction to hear matters on whether the President or Vice-President has been validly elected, whether the term of the President has ceased or become vacant See s. 239(1) CFRN 199 (As amended).
- Appellate (This is the authority to hear appeals from lower courts e.g. is the Court of Appeal has the appellate jurisdiction over appeal from the Federal High Court, State High Court, National Industrial Court)
- Substantive (This pertains to matters which the court may specifically adjudicate upon as stipulated by statute)
- Procedural ( This pertains to the compliance of certain rules and principles of the court. this type of jurisdiction can be waived)
It is settled law that jurisdiction is the foundation of any court proceeding. Its importance is so fundamental to the matter that it can be raised at any time even up to the Supreme Court for the first time. A court cannot assume jurisdiction or confer itself with jurisdiction where it lacks same. In the case of CBN v. AUTO IMPORT EXPORT & ANOR (2012) LPELR-7858 (CA) the court held as follows;
“It has been stated, time without number, in a plethora of authorities, that jurisdiction is the threshold and livewire that determines the authority of a Court of law or tribunal to entertain a case before it. This is absolutely so, because it is only when a Court is imbued or conferred with the necessary jurisdiction by the Constitution and law that it will have the judicial power and authority to entertain, hear and adjudicate upon any cause or matter brought before it by parties. Conversely, the absence of such requisite jurisdiction would render any proceedings purportedly conducted by Court an exercise in futility, thus null, void and of no effect whatsoever, no matter how well conducted. ……………….
It is equally a well settled principle, that where a Court lacks jurisdiction to try a matter or case, it fundamentally lacks the vires to hear, and adjudicate upon any issue therein. Thus, due to the complex and fundamental nature thereof, the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and point in time of the proceedings, at the trial Court, the Court of Appeal, or even the apex Court itself. This trite principle has been settled in a plethora of authorities, including the locus classicus thereof, MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILM (1952) NSCC 374; (1952) 2 SCNLR 341.”
In the instant situation the question which comes to mind is whether a Judge of the High Court presiding over a criminal trial has the requisite jurisdiction to continue the hearing of the matter after he has been elevated to the Court of Appeal as a Justice.
I will say no because subject to the principles of hierarchy of courts in Nigeria, the Court of Appeal do not share concurrent jurisdiction with the State High Court in respect of any matter.
The Court of Appeal only has Appellate Jurisdiction to hear appeals from the High Court to it whereas the State High Court has jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal actions.
As stated before now, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a court nor can parties by agreement confer same on the court where the statute creating such courts like in this case, the constitution has not conferred such jurisdiction.
I will like to bring to our minds the provisions of the constitution conferring jurisdiction on the High Court and Court of Appeal accordingly.
Section 239 (1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As amended) conferred original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal on the following matters and it expressly provides that;
(1) “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Court of Appeal shall, to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to whether-
(a) any person has been validly elected to the office of President, Vice-President, Governor or Deputy Governor under this Constitution; or
(b) the term of office of the President, Vice-President, Governor or Deputy-Governor has ceased; or
(c) the office of President, Vice-President, Governor or Deputy has become vacant
(2) In the hearing and determination of an election petition under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, the Court of Appeal shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least three Justices of the Court of Appeal”.
Section 240 provides that;
S. 240 “Subject to the provisions of this constitution, the Court of Appeal shall have Jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Federal High Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, High Court of a State, Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Sharia Court of Appeal of a State, Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Customary Court of Appeal of a State and from decisions of a court martial or other tribunals as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeal is properly constituted where there are at least 3 Justices sitting. It does not have the requisite Jurisdiction to hear Criminal or Civil matters except on appeal from the State High Court.
On the other hand, section 270 of the constitution created the High Court of a State and section 272 (1) specifically confers the State High Court with its general jurisdiction where it provides that;
(1) “Subject to the provisions of section 251 and other provisions of this constitution, the High Court of a State shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an offence committed by any person.”
(2) The reference to civil or criminal proceedings in this section includes a reference to the proceedings which originate in the High Court of a State and those which are brought before the High Court to be dealt with by the court in the exercise of its appellate or supervisory jurisdiction.”
As it may be seen from the foregoing provisions, there is no where within the said sections as well as the ones stated above that a Justice of the Court of Appeal may continue with a matter he was previously hearing as a Judge of the State High Court. He simply lacks the jurisdiction to do so as the constitution never conferred it.
- THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION (1999 AS AMENDED)
This doctrine postulates that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other statutory enactment of the National Assembly where it is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution shall to the extent of its inconsistency be null and void. (See s. 1 (3) 1999 CFRN (As amended))
This doctrine has been affirmed in the case of FBN PLC v. T.S.A. INDUSTRIES LTD (2010) LPELR-1283 (SC) where the court pronounced on the nature and effect of the supremacy of the constitution and held that;
“By virtue of the provision of Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution , the doctrine of supremacy of the Constitution demands that if any law is inconsistent with the provision of the 1999 Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail and the other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void. “
Also, in ABACHA & ORS. v. FAWEHINMI (2000) LPELR-14 (SC), the court stated that;
“The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; it is the grundnorm. Its supremacy has never been called to question in ordinary circumstances. For avoidance of doubt, the 1979 Constitution stated categorically in its Chapter 1, Section 1(1) as follows:
“1(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation Republic of Nigeria.”
For purposes of clarity, its Section 1(3) goes further to state:
“1(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provision of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”
The nature of this doctrine is that there is no other law which is above the constitution of Nigerian. It is immaterial that such law was enacted by the National Assembly and assented to by the President. Such law, in as much as it is not in tune or in line with what has been provided for by the constitution shall to the extent of such inconsistency be void. Such law cannot stand and should not be regarded or enforced by the courts.
In the instant situation, the provision of the S. 396 (7) ACJA which provides as follows;
“Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, A judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a high court Judge, only for the purpose of concluding any partly heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his elevation, and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time, provided that this section shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of a Court of Appeal.” is in my humble view completely at par/variance with the provisions of Section 1 (1)& (3) of the constitution and according to the doctrine of the Supremacy of the constitution is null and void.
Section 1 (3) of the CFRN 1999 (As Amended) provides that;
“If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”
Thus, in the instant case, it is unconstitutional for a Judge of the High Court elevated to a Justice of the Court of Appeal to continue to preside over a criminal matter in the High Court as he is no longer a Judge of the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over matters in such court.
Going further, the constitution has provided for the composition/constitution of a State High Court under S. 273 of the constitution where it provides that;
“For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it under this constitution or any law, a High Court of a State shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least one Judge of that Court”
Going by the above provision, a Justice of the court of Appeal is not a judge of the State High Court and as such does not have the jurisdiction to preside over any matter whether partly heard by him or not in that court. Any decision of a court lacking the prerequisite jurisdiction constitutes a nullity and no one should submit to such jurisdiction and cannot agree to confer such jurisdiction where the statute creating such court has not created such jurisdiction.
- WHETHER INDEED S. 396 (7) ACJA IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED)
Section 396 (7) of the ACJA provides that;
“Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, A judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a high court Judge, only for the purpose of concluding any partly heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his elevation, and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time, provided that this section shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of a Court of Appeal.”
And Section 1 (1) and (3) of the Constitution says;
“1(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation Republic of Nigeria.”
For purposes of clarity, its Section 1(3) goes further to state:
“1(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provision of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”
The constitution has conferred different jurisdictions upon the High Court of a State and the Court of Appeal and they are no way similar. While the State High has jurisdiction to hear Civil and Criminal matters, the Court of Appeal has amongst others the jurisdiction to hear appeals from the State High Court, Federal High Court, National industrial Court and so on.
The composition of a State High Court according to the constitution is at least a Judge of the Court and I have stated earlier on that a Justice of the Court of Appeal is not a Judge of the State High Court at least not stated so by the Constitutional provisions creating the Court of Appeal.
Thus, it is not proper for a Justice of the Court of Appeal to continue with a matter which he was handling prior to his elevation as a Justice of the Court of Appeal. Jurisdiction, where it is non-existent, cannot be conferred on oneself nor can parties agree to it.
In the instant case, in light of the provisions of S. 1 (1) & (3) of the constitution, the provisions of S. 396 (7) ACJA is inconsistent with the constitution and is to the extent of its inconsistency null and void.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, having found that S. 396 (7) ACJA is inconsistent with the constitution, the said section should be expunged completely form the Act. It is my advise that where a Judge of a State High Court has been elevated to a higher office, any criminal matter that is being handled by him should be transferred to another trial Judge with concurrent jurisdiction as the former Judge prior to elevation and be allowed to commence de novo.
I completely agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate that where a Judge has been elevated from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, any partly heard criminal matter by him should be allowed to commence de novo before another Judge with the requisite jurisdiction to hear same.
Benita Ayois a legal practitioner based in Lagos, Nigeria.
Feature/OPED
From Force to Partnership: How IGP Disu is Changing the Police Narrative
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
Feature/OPED
How Responsible Borrowing Can Help You Reach Your Financial Goals
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
Feature/OPED
Three Interdependent Pillars Reshaping African Financial Infrastructure
By Winston Osuchukwu
Africa’s financial infrastructure is entering a defining phase. Digital adoption continues to accelerate, financial inclusion is deepening, and institutions across the ecosystem are investing in connected, data-driven services. According to the World Bank’s Global Findex Database, account ownership across Sub-Saharan Africa has expanded significantly over the past decade, while mobile money continues to process hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Sustained investment in Africa’s fintech ecosystem reflects the same growing confidence in the continent’s financial future.
As the ecosystem matures, success will depend less on isolated innovation and more on how institutions connect their capabilities. The next phase of financial infrastructure is being shaped by three interdependent pillars: connected ecosystems that widen the data available on each customer, data intelligence that turns that scattered data into a single coherent picture, and intelligent decision-making that turns insight into measurable outcomes.
Connected Ecosystems Create the Foundation for Intelligence
No single institution has a complete view of the financial ecosystem. Banks, fintechs, payment providers, telecommunications companies, regulators, and other participants each contribute different pieces of the picture. As these organisations become more connected through interoperable payment systems, shared infrastructure, and collaborative partnerships, financial services become more accessible and seamless for individuals and businesses alike.
Connectivity alone, however, is not enough. A more connected ecosystem also creates exponentially more data, and unless that information can be integrated and interpreted consistently, greater connectivity simply produces greater complexity. The value of collaboration therefore depends on the ability to transform fragmented information into a coherent picture.
Data Intelligence Creates Shared Understanding
Once data flows across connected ecosystems, the next challenge is making sense of it. Financial institutions need more than access to information; they need the ability to unify diverse data sources, identify meaningful patterns, and generate insights that accurately reflect customer behaviour, operational performance, and emerging risks.
Data intelligence provides this common understanding. It enables institutions to move beyond isolated datasets and develop a trusted, enterprise-wide view that supports regulatory compliance, operational efficiency, and customer-centric innovation. Yet even the clearest insight has limited value if it remains descriptive. Understanding what is happening is only useful when institutions can confidently decide what to do next.
Intelligent Decisions Drive Real Outcomes
This is where artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, and machine learning become transformative. Built on a foundation of connected ecosystems and high-quality data intelligence, these technologies enable organisations to make faster, more consistent decisions across lending, fraud detection, compliance, customer engagement, and strategic planning.
Rather than replacing human expertise, intelligent decision-making augments it by helping institutions anticipate change, respond proactively, and allocate resources more effectively. When decisions are powered by reliable data and supported by a connected financial ecosystem, organisations become more resilient, customers enjoy better experiences, and the entire financial value chain operates more efficiently.
Africa’s financial future will not be shaped by technology or data in isolation. Progress requires that these capabilities work together. Connected ecosystems generate the information. Data intelligence transforms that information into “features” – the meaningful attributes of a customer’s behaviour that a model can learn from. Intelligent decision-making algorithms then convert those “features” into action. Together, they form the foundation of a financial infrastructure that is more inclusive, resilient, and capable of supporting sustainable economic growth.
At Mathesis Analytics, we turn information into action – helping financial institutions transform complex and frequently unstructured data into meaningful insights they can act on – helping financial institutions make sense of complex, fragmented data and lend confidently to the people and businesses driving Africa’s economy.
Winston Osuchukwu is the Founder and CEO of Mathesis Analytics Inc.


