Feature/OPED
Upholding Governor Okowa’s Gbaramatu Initiative As Panacea For Niger Delta Peace
By Ephraim Okwuosa
The recent initiative of the Delta State Governor, Dr Ifeanyi Okowa, in requesting the company of immediate past President Goodluck Jonathan for a joint visit to Gbaramatu kingdom in the oil producing area of Niger Delta in pursuit of peace, is clear demonstration that a new wave of patriotic support has emerged to boost the on-going efforts of the President Buhari’s leadership to restore peace in the Niger Delta region.
Governor Ifeanyi Okowa’s role as a new dove in the Niger Delta crisis despite his contrasting partisan interest with the Nigeria’s ruling government of President Buhari is not only highly commendable but demonstrates unique intent for collective pursuit of peace.
Nevertheless, this Okowa’s presumed desire for peace demands a thorough substantive discussion that should not end with mere rhetoric.
For now, it is wise to recognise that the fresh initiative for calm by Governor Okowa may be the much needed rational response to the Niger Delta uncertainty. In truth, Governor Okowa’s idea of taking former President Goodluck Jonathan to appeal to the King of Gbaramatu for peace in the Niger Delta region is considered an effective and purposeful diplomacy. Indeed, it is an indication that peace in the Niger Delta may no longer be a distant prospect because this particular action shares a number of features with the past strategy employed in restoring peace in the Niger Delta by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua.
Without a doubt, the problems of militancy in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria’s oil producing areas have had real bite in reducing the Federal Government’s revenue particularly in its era of economic recession. Presently, under President Muhammadu Buhari’s leadership, where both oil production and price have sharply reduced, what this simply portends is likely threat of economic turmoil for a nation with inadequate foreign reserves, yet highly dependent on troubled proceeds from oil sales which accounts for over eighty percent of its foreign revenue.
That the crisis situation in Niger Delta has largely contributed in casting Nigeria led democratic government of President Buhari to be described a nation with seeming economic uncertainty does not call for any expanded debate. In any case, the fact is that at the moment, any purposeful discourse on Nigeria cannot end without including the depressing reality associated with vandalization of oil facilities and insecurity caused by some disgruntled persons. These illegitimate actions have not only brought about so much devastation on the country’s economy but also introduced an unprecedented level of suffering to a majority of the Nigerian population. All these combined with issues of inappropriate and confusing government economic policies have resulted in the dwindling value of Nigeria’s currency, growing unemployment, complications in the management of the economy, delayed salaries and disappearing business outfits.
Succinctly put, Nigeria’s pathetic situation has left over half of its population reeling in economic hardships. Conceivably, the current state of affairs might be the reason why some economic analysts strongly believe that without the stoppage of hostilities in the Niger Delta, Nigeria’s quest to overcome its recession may just be a dream too distant for actualization. Such analysts, even though recorded to have commended the tasking efforts of the seventy four year old President Buhari in addressing corrupting, remain sceptical that the global conversing by the Nigerian government for fresh investments will translate to meaningful gains without appropriately addressing the domestic problems of the Niger Delta disturbances which has projected Nigeria as unsafe for investment especially for oil related activities.
Even so, one twisty contradiction herein is that these acts of violence perpetuated by persons largely termed Niger Delta militants are best described as self-inflicted injuries. This is particularly so because those that advance such ignoble activities are not immune to the economic hardship they cause the Nigerian people.
Specifically, even the nine oil producing states that were hitherto classified as rich and distinctively different courtesy of billions of naira they earn as monthly allocation from oil derivation have witnessed diminished revenue which has made them incapable of paying salaries to their workers.
On this Niger Delta predicament, the factual reality is that even though there is no amount of logic that would provide legitimate excuses for the violent acts and ill motivations of the Niger Delta militants, their claim of being the goose that lay the golden eggs yet neither feeds appropriately from it nor enjoys a proportionate share cannot be dismissed in any quality dialogue. Arguably, some persons may wish to use similar premises like Nigeria’s days of groundout pyramids to reach a set of varied troubling conclusions or raise skewed questions on the alleged preferential treatment of Niger Delta oil producing communities but this does not reflect the realities in oil production activities and the dangers it brings to the communities at a gain to the Federal Government.
Consequently, the actuality remains that people from oil producing areas and those causing problems in the Niger Delta should be treated as mere trouble makers but pacified through rational responses and constructive dialogue. Indeed, the recent renewed violence in the Niger Delta region even though suspicious of skewed motive is a specific situation that calls for definite practical and sensible responses. This why I find the recent visit of Governor Okowa and Former President Jonathan to Gbaramatu Kingdom very relevant and necessary for an expansive discussion.
Presently, the Niger Delta region though summed with the tag of complex unsettled issues is certainly not beyond remediation either by brute force or dialogue. However, on a sensible reasoning, dialogue remains a best option for peace if really Nigeria is desirous of continuing its oil production in the said region.
In fact, it is also important to state that in any diverse society like Nigeria, at times unity may not suggest absolute uniformity because of existing varied interest groups and agitations. None the less, on some issues, national interest must take first place as there are lines that should not be crossed even by the most focused agitation; otherwise such may upturn the security and economic interests of a country.
Certainly, this is what I think the President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration has tried to preach to the Niger Delta people.
Unfortunately, the government’s approach of communication does not seem most appropriate especially for a people that have ears that seem blocked on the assumption of righteous anger.
Again, on this dismal issue of Niger Delta restiveness, a lot of objective observers have posited that the Nigerian government is not blame free because contrary to its claim of doing so much for the Niger Delta, there exist a lot of contentious issues.
Fundamentally, to the majority of Niger Delta people, the Nigerian Government is largely termed as another bullying masquerade that claims it is assisting on the one hand, yet on the other divide; it silently kills host communities through oil exploration activities without apposite corresponding development and remediation measures over issues of environmental degradation. Indeed, this remains a major disputation in government’s involvement in oil production activities in Niger Delta.
On the other hand, granted that various efforts have been made by the Buhari’s administration to establish likely mechanisms it thinks would stop the violence in Niger Delta, however with due acknowledgement to the good efforts of the present Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Dr Ibe Kachikwu, the reality is that such efforts are yet to provide any signal for long lasting peace. Consequently, the big question herein is, how best can the Nigerian government achieve stability in the Niger Delta region with neither force nor needless deaths, an issue which was hitherto almost perfectly tackled for almost a decade until the arrival of the President Buhari’s administration. Politely put, is it not possible to create a new line of diplomacy that can constructively persuade the militants to understand that there can never be any reasonable justification or righteousness for any group of persons to engage in extreme violence of murder of security personnel, innocent citizens and workers in guise of pursuit of self-aspirations? On this, the Nigerian Government seems to be missing the woods for the trees.
In any case, the need to support peace with determined action is a must for both the people of Niger Delta and the Nigerian government.
However, while the Niger Delta militants must get over the delusion that their inappropriate actions will provide credible solutions to their seeming neglect, on the converse, the Government should stop listening to only those that think vandalization of oil facilities by militants can be stopped by the power of military confrontation. With hindsight, it is easy to say this may just end up as an unnecessary war that the Nigerian military is woefully underprepared to win without causing thousands of civilian casualties and huge damage to the human rights of persons the government claims it is desirous to give better lives.
Besides the many ambiguities that surround Niger Delta and the widely presumed attitude of Government’s neglect, the essential truth is that it is hopelessly naïve for any reasonable person to think that meaningful development will take place in Niger Delta region without peace.
Indeed, even though it is not far from fact that the Niger Delta people believe they have been highly marginalized by previous governments until the emergence of the late President Umaru Yar’adua’s
Amnesty in exchange for peace programme, in the present situation, what is essentially needed is not much squabble but a quick resolution of the differing issues for common good. Indeed, many polity watchers believe that the unique approach of peace employed by the late President Yar’Adua did not only clear the major obstacles of doubt but opened possibilities of trust on many issues of common interest between the government and the Niger Delta people.
Realistically, any reasonable analyst on Niger Delta crisis will automatically understand that the exclusive peace initiative of the late President Yar’Adua was actually what guaranteed tranquillity in the Niger Delta region for almost a decade. Indeed, the Yar’adua’s peace initiative actually did show that talking frankly with the militants is not an admission of incompetence.
Rather, it is wisdom which opens doors to strategic partnership for worthwhile deal for all parties in the Niger Delta crisis. Unfortunately, with Muhammadu Buhari as President and the militants back to the creeks to continue violence, there is no doubt that the late President Yar’adua’s peace initiative has been weakened to a state of near collapse. A regrettable incident and sad issue is that many people do not have the understanding that the entire blame should not be on the door steps of President Buhari but more on the greed of some different actors from the Niger Delta extract over socio political and economic personal gains. This is why the President must be clear eyed on what he reads about the Niger Delta crisis from some of trusted persons.
For now, it may not be strange that even those politicians close to Mr President may be offering half-truths that give the an erroneous impression of the Niger Delta mess, thus sadly creating apprehension that may negatively motivate those that have sympathy for the militants not to embrace any patriotic zeal that will encourage an end to the conflict. This is for sure the extend that greed and politics have thrust Niger Delta.
Interestingly, despite the above stated conjectures, all hope does not appear lost for genuine peace in Niger Delta. This is because after long months of chaos and imbroglio, it does seem that some persons from Niger Delta are beginning to think more creatively. The recent visit of Governor Okowa and former President Jonathan to Gbaramatu is clear testament that the quest for peace has gained steam. Indeed, any good follower of Niger Delta crisis ought to know the historical significance of Gbaramatu Kingdom. For avoidance of doubt, Gbaramatu is strategically located in the oil producing area of Delta State in the Niger Delta Region. It is a major Ijaw ethnic settlement that consists of many communities including Okerenkoko and Oporoza.
Also, it is the home of one Chief Government Ekpemupolo a.k.a Tompolo, a well-known influential ex militant or militant depending on how one’s lenses are polarized. Certainly, given the new realities in the Niger Delta, the categorization of Tompolo will form sufficient discourse elsewhere but for now, let this peace go with the healthy assumption of Ex militant because the Nigerian constitution accords his the status of innocence until proven guilty.
Never the less, it is on record that Tompolo was the force behind encouraging his co agitators to embrace the Amnesty of the late President Umaru Yar’Adua, unfortunately, that bond of peace between the Nigerian government and Tompolo faded as soon as the Buhari’s led Government charged him to court on multiple allegations of corruption and froze his bank accounts with billions of naira, he claimed he earned genuinely through contracts of pipeline monitoring and other related transactions related to sustaining peace in the Niger Delta.
Ever since the government decent on Tompolo and issuance of arrest warrant, neither, Niger Delta, Gbaramatu, Tompolo, oil production nor Nigerian economy has known peace. Whatever this means, can be easily interpreted by the average mind but the truth is that Tompolo is still at the heart of Niger Delta matters and no amount of pretence or denial can diminish the fact of his influence over his people, an attribute the late President Yar’adua aptly utilized to attain peace in the Niger Delta.
For ease of comprehension on Gbaramatu’s significance and Tompolo’s influence, in May 2009, according to Media reports, the Gbaramatu kingdom was attacked by a combined team of Army, Navy and Air force known as Joint Task Force (JTF). Military aircraft was used in attacking Tompolo’s infamous Camp 5 and his personal house at Oporoza.
During the said military operation, it was alleged that innocent women and children were reportedly killed. Indeed, the military was said to have been provoked into taking the action because some of their personnel were allegedly attacked by the militants.
Thereafter, at the instance of the late President Yar’Adua, his then Vice President, Goodluck Jonathan visited the Gbaramatu kingdom for successful peace talk with Tompolo and his fellow travelers. Definitely, the 2009 visit to Gbaramatu was highly instrumental to ending Niger Delta violence under the late President Umaru Yar’Adua; an event that will be too difficult to discard in the documentation of the history of Niger Delta.
Specifically, the recent joint visit of Governor Okowa and former President Goodluck Jonathan to Gbaramatu in search of peace signals a personal commitment of these leaders that are indigenes of Niger Delta. That these men have spoken openly on an issue of national concern implicitly acknowledging that peace in the Niger Delta is a necessity, deserves commendation. The primacy of the visit by the duo of Governor Okowa and former President Goodluck Jonathan to Gbaramatu is that it has the potential of accomplishing success like the 2009 visit to Gbaramatu by former Delta State Governor, Dr Emmanuel Uduaghan and the same Goodluck Jonathan.
While it is unrealistic to assume that the mere presence of Okowa and Goodluck Jonathan will magically bring about cessation of violence in Niger Delta without necessary corresponding actions by major parties in the crisis, nevertheless, the simple fact herein is that what Governor Okowa has resurrected at Gbaramatu will provide opportunity for some behind-the-scenes work that is certain to offer a more holistic approach to resolving the Niger Delta crisis. Such a vital peace initiative should not be allowed to crash on the basis of Government’s usual attitude of Talk only, No action, NATO or swallowed by unnecessary political cynicism, and bitterness.
Consequently, now that Governor Okowa has provided a decent chance for what appears to be a short but effective road to peace, this diplomacy should not be thrown to the dustbin of history. The government of President Buhari must take on this positive momentum because if genuine actions for peace are swiftly pursued including quashing cases in court against some militants like Tompolo, then Yar’adua’s success on quelling militancy in Niger Delta may repeat itself.
Certainly, there would be deep misgivings about the wisdom of this recommendation but the naked fact and unpretentious ugly reality is that Tompolo and company are significant interest group in this Niger Delta issue. Any denial of this should best be regarded as an assault to the sensibilities of any credible analyst.
Be that as it may, the fact is that with present circumstances in Niger Delta, the capturing of Tompolo by the gallant men of Nigeria’s military on the basis of suspicion for alleged connection with militancy may just take a little time but will that ever suggest lasting peace in Niger Delta? Even the pursuit of seeming justice for the incarceration of Tompolo on issues related to alleged corruption is very unwise especially given that the entire momentary value in question is less than what is lost by the Nigerian government to violence in just a day in the Niger Delta crisis. Without quality reason and diplomacy, such actions of government may introduce a fresh set of complications.
Fortunately, many analysts have already stated that such a judicial pursuit though apt is certainly deficient in common sense and the cost of sustaining military presence in the region is huge waste for a country in recession. This is even twisty for the people of Niger Delta that controversially lay ceaseless claim that they deserve 50 percent of resource control from oil production in their region against the existing 13% offered by the Nigerian Government. This is why this writer believes that those that have the ears of President Buhari must not be petty minded on their nature of advice relating to this sad issue that has grossly affected the Nigerian economy put millions of Nigeria in hunger and angry. Firmly put, if the government ever agrees to embrace the wisdom of genuine especially for a soft landing for the assumed new militants and enhancement of the Paul Boroh led
Amnesty, Rehabilitation and Reintegration Initiative of President Buhari, then failure of these new militants to adhere to peace will be a self-inflicted tragedy that would not only ruin them but will make them miss a last viable opportunity to access a likely new form of Amnesty which the focused Okowa’s initiative might negotiate for them.
All said, Governor Okowa in his capacity as the Leader of an area that accounts for about sixty percent of this new militancy must further his peace initiative to actually demonstrate that he is both good at talking peace and walking the walk. On the other side, both the government and militants must see this Governor Okowa’s diplomacy as the best hope for the salvation of the Niger Delta and Nigeria’s economic concerns, thus encourage and embrace it.
Dr Ephraim Okwuosa, a concerned citizen from Niger Delta and Co-ordinator, Anti-Corruption Advocates, writes from 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
7 Comments