Connect with us

Feature/OPED

US Senate Impeachment Trial of Trump and Nigeria’s Legislative Conduct: An Assessment

Published

on

Trump trial and US-Nig. Senate assessment

By Omoshola Deji

In Athens, 510 BC, Cleisthenes instituted democracy to foster greater: accountability of institutions and leaders to citizens and the law. Today, the tenet is being flouted with impunity, especially in developing nations, where most of the heads of parliament are puppets of the president. Nigeria tops the list. While her legislature is failing in oversight and overlooking misconducts, that of the United States (US) prosecuted President Donald Trump and almost removed him from office.

This piece evaluates the two countries legislative conduct, based on the proceedings of Trump’s impeachment trial.

Process and History of US and Nigerian President Impeachment

Article II, section 4 of the US Constitution empowers Congress – comprising the House of Representatives and Senate – to remove the president from office for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours.

The House and Senate gets to remove the president in two separate trials. First, the House would deliberate and approve the articles of impeachment through a simple majority vote. The second trial occurs in the Senate, where conviction on any of the articles requires a two-third majority vote, which if gotten, results in the president’s removal from office. Trump’s impeachment succeeded in the House, but failed in the Senate, denoting he remains president.

Only three presidents have been impeached throughout US over 230-year-old democracy. First, Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for violating the Tenure of Office Act. Then, Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 for perjury, obstruction of justice and having an inappropriate relationship with White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. Lastly, Donald Trump was impeached December 2019. Each of the three – Johnson, Clinton and Trump – escaped removal from office through Senate’s acquittal.

Impeaching Nigeria’s president is a difficult, almost an impossible task. The lengthy, extremely cumbersome process is contained in Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution. No Nigerian president has been impeached, despite their gross incompetence and serial abuse of power.

Allegations against Trump and the Buhari Comparison

Trump’s impeachment trial was a straight confrontation between the ruling Republican, and opposition Democratic Party. The president was tried on two articles of impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The abuse of power bothers on alleged solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 US presidential election. Trump allegedly withheld $391 million aid to Ukraine; upon which he secretly pressurized President Volodymyr Zelensky (of Ukraine) to start investigating former US vice-president Joe Biden for corruption. Trump only released the aid to Ukraine after a whistle-blower complaint.

Biden was ex-president Barrack Obama’s deputy and currently one of the Democratic Party’s presidential aspirants. Trump wants Biden and son, Hunter, investigated for alleged corrupt practices during the Obama presidency’s (2009-2017) aid supply to Ukraine. The US president allegedly pressured his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Biden, despite being aware that the US Prosecutor General had cleared him and his son of corruption in May 2019.

To ensure Biden is investigated, Trump allegedly refused to allow Zelensky visit the White House at a time Ukraine urgently needs the meeting to send fears to its aggressors, particularly Russia, that it has US backing. The Democrats insisted Trump undermined US interests by his action, and must be removed for conditioning congressionally mandated aid on ‘quid pro quo’ – meaning ‘favour for favour.’

Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari is an adherent of ‘quid pro quo.’ His declaration that the Northern region, which gave him 95 percent votes would be favoured than the Southeast that gave him 5 percent is ‘quid pro quo’ – conditioning governance favouritism on votes; favour for favour. Presidents are expected to govern with equity and fairness, but Buhari promised sectionalism and delivered as pledged. The proscription of IPOB, while killer herdsmen are operating unchecked, apparently because they’re among the 95 percent is a dangerous ‘quid pro quo’ adherence that can lead Nigeria into another civil war.

Aside Trump’s hold on aid, the second article of impeachment – obstruction of Congress – bothers on the president’s deliberate blockage of formal legislative inquiries. Trump allegedly instructed all government officials to ignore House subpoenas for testimonies and documents. He ensured no piece of paper or email was turned over to the House. Certainly, Trump would have done worse if he’s a Nigerian.

If Trump was a Nigerian president, he would have ordered the police to lay siege on US House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi’s residence as President Buhari repeatedly did to former Senate President Bukola Saraki. Pelosi would have been distracted with false asset declaration charges till she’s acquitted by the Supreme Court. The Dino Melaye’s in her camp would have been hounded and arraigned on several trumped-up charges. If Trump was a Nigerian president, masked, heavily-armed State Security Service (SSS) operatives would have obstructed the legislators from entering the chambers to carry out impeachment.

The Democrats’ resolve to impeach Trump was perhaps comeuppance, but certainly an insult to Nigerians. The same legislators rebuking Trump supported Obama’s interference in Nigeria’s 2015 presidential election. The poll, as Obama desired, resulted in the first-in-history defeat of then incumbent president, Goodluck Jonathan. It is at best surprising, and at worst annoying that the same Democrats who backed Obama’s action on Nigeria are scolding Trump for trying to aid his win through foreign interference. How miserable for them to live with their own nemesis?

Unlike the US, foreign interference in Nigerian elections attracts no legislative criticism, let alone impeachment. Nigerian legislators took no action when two state governors from Niger Republic crossed into Nigeria to join Buhari’s 2019 re-election campaign in Kano State.

The abuse of power charges against Trump can’t fly for impeachment in Nigeria. Successive presidents have committed greater offenses without reprimand. Ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo spent heavily on electricity provision without result and ordered the Odi massacre. The legislature never summoned him. President Buhari has more than once repressed free speech, disobeyed court orders and spent without legislative approval. Yet, the Senate has never cautioned him. Indeed, what the US lawmakers see as ‘abuse of office’ is what their Nigerian counterpart rank as ‘executive grace.’

US often punishes, but Nigeria rewards wrongdoing. The former’s first citizen, arguably the strongest man in the world, was made to face a tough trial for abuse of office. His record is tainted even though he’s acquitted. Nigeria works the other way round. In the 8th Senate, suspended Senator Ovie Omo-Agege allegedly invaded plenary with thugs, who took away the mace right before the cameras. Rather than prosecute him to serve as a deterrent, the ruling party rewarded him with the exalted position of deputy-senate president in the subsequent, current 9th Senate. Omo-Agege is currently leading the same chamber he once allegedly desecrated. Such can’t occur in the US.

Trial Debate: Democrat vs. Republican

The US senate impeachment trial of Trump was a pure intellectual, thrilling and rigorous debate. The House Managers, comprising mainly the Democrats, argued that Trump deserves to be sacked for obstructing Congress investigation; promoting foreign interference in US election; and withholding economic, diplomatic and military aid to a strategic US ally (Ukraine) in need.

Defending the allegation, Trump’s defense team, comprising the Republicans, contended that the Democrats were trying to upturn Trump’s mandate in order to prevent him from contesting the next election. They argued that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine because 1) he wanted a burden sharing agreement with Europe; and 2) he was unsure of its efficient use, due to the high level of corruption in Ukraine.

Opposing the submission, the Democrats argued that Trump showed no interest in Ukraine’s corruption before Biden announced his presidential ambition. The Republicans disagreed, and accused the Democrat caucus of using impeachment to shield Biden from corruption investigation. They insisted Biden has a case to answer over his actions on Ukraine when he was vice-president.

Contesting the obstruction of Congress article, Trump’s team argued that the president has the power to assert immunity on his top aides, and he did so against Congress to protect the sensitive operations of government from getting to the public.

Citing former presidents that have used such privilege, the Republicans argued that the Democrat-sponsored articles of impeachment was wholly based on presumptions, assumptions and unsupported conclusions. The Democrats, however, refused to back down; they insisted they had a “mountain of evidence” to prove Trump was guilty.

To support their arguments, both the House Managers and Trump’s defense team went deep into the archives; they went as far as referencing what happened in 1796, during the administration of the first US President, George Washington.

Several Supreme Court judgments, dating back to 1893 were cited. Both parties showed resourcefulness as they used historical, legal and rational arguments to establish their case. Their knowledge of history, politics and law was astounding.

Sadly, majority of Nigerian legislators lack such proficiency. Their contributions to motions are often based on partisan, personal interests and their arguments are often shallow, uninformative and irrational. While watching the trial, I couldn’t help but crave for power to order Nigerian legislators into the US Senate to learn functional legislative practice.

Plenary Session: Nigeria-US Comparison

Both the US House and Senate displayed exceptional commitment to public involvement. Many nations won’t permit the live airing of a sensitive issue such as the impeachment trial of a president. But the US stands out. Every minute of the trial was aired live to the local and global population. Nigerian House and Senate are not doing badly in this regard. Most of their sessions are aired live, including the election of principal officers. However, as being done in the US, the Nigerian legislature needs to make public the details of her income, constituency projects and budgetary allocations.

US senators are more open than their Nigerian counterparts. They boldly reveal their planned vote and the reasons for their decision. Many disclosed that they would vote on the impeachment based on personal conviction and desired legacy. Nigerian senators understandably can’t be that outspoken out of the fear of being hounded. This doesn’t, however, rob off the fact majority of them vote ‘aye’ or ‘nay’ based on financial gain, ethnic and religious sentiments, party instruction, and ‘quid pro quo.’

Public interest is not always primary to politicians, including the US senators. Most of the Republican senators were more interested in acquitting Trump than ensuring a fair trial. They denied the public access to crucial information by voting against the admission of additional witnesses and documents.

Voting in favour of the motion would have made the Senate evaluate the leaked indicting videos and testimonies of crucial anti-Trump witnesses such as John Bolton, the ex-national security adviser. Without a doubt, Nigerian progressive senators would have done same to save Buhari.

The US legislators conduct at plenary and commitment to national service need to be emulated by the Nigerian Senate. The US Senate leaders and the Chief Justice, John Roberts coordinated the sessions impartially.

They, unlike their Nigerian counterpart, acted neutral, even though they too (as humans) have their own viewpoints and desires. They set rules that would make everyone listen and participate such as prohibiting the use of phones.

Rather than deploy speech interjection, shout-match and walk-out as commonly done in Nigerian chambers, the US legislators acted responsibly. No one spoke without being recognized and they yielded back time promptly. More than once, they sat for about 12 hours on the impeachment and everyone stayed on strong. If the impeachment trial took place in Nigeria, the senate president would have hurriedly adjourn sitting or ‘dabaru’ the process in favour of his party. Moreover, the senators, many of whom are old and lazy, would have yelled for adjournment or slept off.

End Note

Trump’s acquittal by the US senate sets a bad precedence for succeeding presidents to solicit foreign interference in US election and obstruct the investigation of Congress. Conversely, conviction would have opened the door for future sharply partisan, malicious impeachments.

Both the United States and Nigeria need more executive-legislature synergy. The frosty relationship between Trump and Pelosi has worsened over the impeachment trial. They must be reconciled for the benefit of the American people. It’s difficult, but not impossible to have intergovernmental synergy and a vibrant legislature under the Buhari administration. Perhaps Senate President Ahmed Lawan and House Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila need to attend classes on ‘how to function without being a puppet.’

US democracy is not perfect, but Nigeria has a lot to learn from it. The latter must adopt the former’s positive deeds and embrace attitudinal change.

One may blame the large efficiency gap between US and Nigeria’s democracy on the year of adoption. US democracy is over 230 years old, while Nigeria’s current democratic experiment is only 20 years old. But then, if Nigeria’s systemic failure is anything to go by, it will take us over a thousand years to achieve the progress US made in 230 years. The reason is not far-fetch. US has what Nigeria lacks: transparency, accountability and leadership commitment to growth and development.

Omoshola Deji is a political and public affairs analyst. He wrote in via [email protected]

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are purely of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the position of Business Post Nigeria on the subject matter.

Dipo Olowookere is a journalist based in Nigeria that has passion for reporting business news stories. At his leisure time, he watches football and supports 3SC of Ibadan. Mr Olowookere can be reached via [email protected]

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature/OPED

From Convenience to Culture: How Streaming Will Shape Entertainment in Nigeria in 2026

Published

on

Streaming Will Shape Entertainment

Not too long ago, streaming in Nigeria was seen as a convenience, an alternative to traditional television, used mostly to catch up on missed shows or explore international content. Today, it has evolved into something far more ingrained. Streaming is now a culture: a daily habit that shapes conversations, influences pop culture, drives fandoms and even dictates how stories are told.

From late-night binge sessions and group watch parties to live-tweeting reality shows and football matches, streaming has become woven into how Nigerians experience entertainment. As mobile devices, smart TVs and affordable data options continue to expand access, the platform has moved from the fringes to the centre of everyday life. In 2026, this cultural shift will become even more pronounced.

Here’s what to expect as streaming continues to evolve in Nigeria and across Africa.

Value Will Define Loyalty in an Overcrowded Streaming Market: As streaming becomes mainstream, Nigerian audiences are becoming more discerning. Subscription fatigue is real, and users are no longer impressed by platforms with limited libraries or infrequent updates.

In 2026, loyalty will belong to platforms that offer sustained value, not just headline titles. This means:

  • Deep content libraries that go beyond a handful of popular shows

  • A healthy mix of live TV, sports and on-demand entertainment

  • Regular content refreshes that keep audiences engaged month after month

  • Viewers now understand value, and they will gravitate towards platforms that consistently deliver variety and relevance.

Local Stories Will Drive Cultural Relevance: Streaming has amplified the power of Nigerian storytelling, giving local productions the scale and visibility once reserved for traditional TV. Viewers are showing a clear preference for stories that feel familiar, authentic and culturally grounded.

In Nigeria, titles like Omera, Glass House, Italo, The Real Housewives of Lagos, Nigerian Idol and Big Brother Naija have become shared cultural moments, driving online conversations and real-world buzz. These shows are not just being watched; they are being experienced.

Across the continent, similar patterns are emerging, reinforcing the role of hyperlocal content in building loyalty and identity. In 2026, investment in African creators will remain central to streaming growth.

Streaming Becomes Personal and Predictive: As streaming matures, platforms will increasingly rely on AI to understand viewers on a deeper level. In 2026, Nigerian users can expect:

  • More intuitive recommendations tailored to individual tastes

  • Smarter content discovery that reduces the time spent searching

  • Interactive experiences that respond to viewer behaviour

Beyond content, AI will also enhance advertising relevance and customer support, creating a smoother, more personalised user journey.

Live Sports Will Continue to Anchor Streaming Culture: While binge-worthy series drive daily engagement, live sports remain one of streaming’s biggest cultural anchors. Football, in particular, continues to command passionate followership in Nigeria.

With the 2026 FIFA World Cup scheduled for June–July, live streaming will dominate viewing behaviour once domestic leagues conclude. Nigerian football fans demand quality, reliability and immediacy, making official platforms with full broadcast rights, such as SuperSport, essential destinations during major tournaments.

In 2026, sports will further reinforce the value of legitimate, high-quality streaming experiences.

Security Becomes Non-Negotiable: As streaming cements its cultural relevance, content protection will take on greater importance. Premium sports and entertainment remain prime targets for piracy, but the response is becoming more sophisticated.

Technologies from cybersecurity firms like Irdeto now enable real-time monitoring, rapid takedowns and legal action against illicit streaming networks. These measures protect not just platforms, but creators and the broader creative ecosystem, a critical consideration as local production continues to grow.

Innovation Makes Streaming More Inclusive: One of the most significant shifts in Nigeria’s streaming landscape is how inclusive it has become. Platforms are innovating around:

  • Flexible pricing

  • Bundled services that combine TV and streaming

  • Multi-device access, including mobile-first options

Whether premium or entry-level, users can now find options that suit their lifestyle and budget, reinforcing streaming’s position as an everyday entertainment staple.

A More Conscious Streaming Audience Emerges: As streaming culture matures, so does audience awareness. Nigerian viewers are increasingly able to identify illegal streaming platforms and understand the long-term damage piracy causes to the industry.

In 2026, conscious viewing will continue to gain ground, with users learning to avoid red flags such as “free” premium streams, unofficial apps, VPN-only access and excessive pop-up advertising.

Streaming is no longer simply about watching content, it is about belonging to moments, communities and conversations. In Nigeria, it has evolved into a cultural force that shapes how stories are told, shared and celebrated.

As 2026 unfolds, streaming will continue to thrive at the intersection of technology, culture and creativity, offering entertainment that is accessible, relevant and deeply local.

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

How Compliance through Technology among Banks can Promote Intra-Africa Trade

Published

on

Anne Mureithi Ecobank CESA

By Anne Mureithi

Provision of banking services in Africa continues to undergo profound digital transformation where most transactions are conducted virtually via digital devices and cash moved electronically. Mobile banking, fintech innovation, and cross-border digital payments have reshaped how individuals and businesses consume financial services.

In Nigeria and across the continent face, banks face sharp scrutiny from expanding regulatory landscape, including Anti-Money Laundering (AML), combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) and combating the financing of proliferation (CPF) that involves disrupting funds for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through targeted financial sanctions.

With increased cross border trade, everyone including governments look upon banks to provide Know Your Customer (KYC) services, fraud risk management, and increasingly adhere to stringent data protection and privacy regulations as well as Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting standards.

Compliance is no longer a back-office obligation, and this calls for increased investments in technology, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) to enable banks to meet compliance requirements.

This is important as local traders want a banking partner who offers one-stop shop services on compliance matters. For banks, this is a competitive advantage, a core capability, and a source of differentiation. By embedding compliance into product and process design, banks can meet regulatory obligations efficiently while fostering innovation through a compliance-by-design approach.

In March 2025, the Central Bank of Kenya published the results of a survey on AI adoption in the banking sector, revealing moderate uptake, with 50% of respondents indicating some level of implementation. The survey found that among institutions that had adopted AI and machine learning, the leading applications were credit risk assessment (65%), cybersecurity (54%) and customer service (43%), followed by e-KYC (41%) and fraud risk management (40%).

These findings underscore significant untapped potential for AI to transform customer experience and strengthen risk management, particularly in AML and compliance monitoring. As intra-Africa trade continues to increase, compliance teams within banks must play a leading role in establishing strong governance, ensuring transparency, and preparing institutions for emerging regulatory expectations.

The Central Bank of Kenya has confirmed that it is in the final stages of developing a Guidance Note on Artificial Intelligence, with 95% of surveyed institutions having requested formal regulatory direction. The anticipated principles-based framework will focus on governance, risk management, transparency, and the ethical use of AI, laying the foundation for responsible innovation in the financial sector.

AI and ML models offer practical solutions to compliance challenges by learning and tracking typical behavioural patterns by customer, product, and corridor, flagging anomalies such as unusual counterparties, transaction values, or routing patterns in cross-border flows. These tools can also generate more accurate and complete assessments of ongoing customer due diligence and customer risk, which can be updated to account for new and emerging threats in real time.

By detecting potential violations of normal customer profiles in data or groups of customers with higher-risk characteristics, AI has streamlined priorities towards high-risk cases and reduced the time spent on false positives. This capability is increasingly critical as transaction volumes and complexity grow. Such technological advances transform compliance from a costly obligation into a strategic advantage.

Customers do not need to know one another to execute a transaction since AI-powered identity authenticates customer identity through document scanning, biometric verification and mobile-based identity solutions. These solutions have also enabled banks to onboard new customers remotely without the need to visit a physical bank to fill in registration details.

Accounts are fully secure and only users who pass the mobile-based identity verification are allowed access thereby preventing fraud. This also supports financial inclusion by enabling access to financial services for individuals who struggle to provide adequate identification documents for opening bank accounts.

In addition, Regulatory Technology (RegTech) solutions enable financial institutions to monitor regulatory developments, map obligations across their operations, conduct initial gap assessments, ensure that policies and procedures are always up to date and streamline regulatory reporting.

This capability is particularly valuable for pan-African institutions in ensuring agility while responding to regulatory changes across multiple jurisdictions. With its presence in 34 African countries, Ecobank advocates for harmonised payment systems and regulatory frameworks as a catalyst for accelerating intra-African trade.

Regional regulatory alignment further amplifies these gains. As African regulators work towards greater harmonisation of standards, banks with pan-African footprints are uniquely positioned to bridge local realities with global expectations, enabling smoother cross-border transactions and reducing friction for businesses operating across multiple markets.

The convergence of digital innovation and regulation presents an opportunity to support regional integration and strengthen public confidence. Banks that integrate compliance into their digital strategies, invest in ethical AI, enforce strong governance, and actively engage regulators will be best positioned to compete, facilitate trade, and protect financial integrity.

On an Africa-wide platform, traders from Nigeria want a synchronised platform that provides them with end-to-end solutions. Say Ecobank Group’s AML monitoring and sanctions screening capabilities within its SWIFT payment infrastructure ensure that all cross-border payment messages undergo real-time compliance checks prior to fund settlement.

With increased intra-Africa trade that rides on online platforms, accelerated digitalisation of cross-border transactions, timely, efficient, and secure payment processing is paramount. Real-time compliance monitoring is a non-negotiable cornerstone of safeguarding the integrity of international payment flows.

Ultimately, the future of banking in Africa will be defined by how institutions harness technology to meet regulatory obligations, deter financial crime, and foster trust among businesses, consumers, and public institutions alike. Compliance is no longer a constraint on growth; it is a foundation for sustainable innovation, regional integration, and long-term confidence in Africa’s financial system.

Ms Mureithi is a director in charge of compliance at Ecobank, Central, Eastern and Southern Africa (CESA)

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

The Missing Pieces in Nigeria’s Banking Recapitalisation

Published

on

Nigeria’s Banking Recapitalisation

By Blaise Udunze

Nigeria’s economy will be experiencing yet another round of reform; after the new tax implementation, the banking sector recapitalisation exercise will begin within less than three months until the March 31, 2026, deadline. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Olayemi Cardoso, disclosed that 27 banks have tapped the capital market via public offers and rights issues.

The figures show that of 21 the 37 commercial, merchant, and non-interest banks in the country have met or exceeded the revised minimum capital thresholds of N500 billion for internationally authorised banks, N200 billion for national banks, N50 billion for regional banks, and N10-20 billion for non-interest banks. With the developments above, policymakers are betting that stronger balance sheets will help banks withstand macroeconomic shocks, finance growth, and restore confidence in the financial system. On the surface, the logic is sound, capital matters. But history warns us that capital alone is not a cure-all.

Nigeria has been here before, going by the 2004-2005 era of the then-governor of CBN, Charles Soludo, whose banking consolidation dramatically reduced the number of banks from 89 to 25 and created national champions. Yet barely five years later, the system was back in crisis, requiring regulatory intervention, bailouts, and the creation of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) to absorb toxic assets. The lesson here is clear, which revealed that recapitalisation that ignores structural weaknesses merely postpones failure.

If the current exercise is to succeed, the CBN must use it not only to raise capital but to repair the deeper fault lines that have long undermined the stability, credibility, and effectiveness of Nigeria’s banking sector.

More Capital isn’t Always Better Capital

The first and most critical issue is the quality of capital being raised. Disclosures made by the banks have shown that the combined capital base of about N5.142 trillion is already locked in by lenders across the different licence categories. Bigger numbers on paper mean little if the capital is not genuinely loss-absorbing. In past recapitalisation cycles, concerns emerged about funds being raised through related parties, short-term borrowings disguised as equity, or complex arrangements that ultimately recycled the same risks back into the system.

This time, the CBN must insist on transparent, verifiable sources of capital. Every naira raised should be traceable, free from conflicts of interest, and capable of absorbing real losses in a downturn. Otherwise, recapitalisation becomes an accounting exercise rather than a resilience-building one.

Why Corporate Governance Remains the Achilles’ Heel

Perhaps the most persistent weakness in Nigeria’s banking sector is corporate governance failure. Many bank crises have not been caused by macroeconomic shocks alone, but by poor board oversight, insider abuse, weak risk culture, and excessive executive power.

Recapitalisation provides a rare regulatory leverage point. The CBN should use it to reset governance standards, not just capital thresholds. Boards must be independent in substance, not just in form. Being one of the critical aspects of the banking challenge, insider lending rules should be enforced without exception. Risk committees in every financial institution must be empowered, not sidelined by dominant executives.

Without the apex bank fixing governance, new capital risks become fresh fuel for old excesses.

The Unresolved Burden of Non-Performing Loans (NPLs)

Data from the CBN’s latest macroeconomic outlook showed that the banking industry’s Non-Performing Loans ratio climbed to an estimated 7 percent, pushing the sector above the prudential ceiling of 5 percent. Nigeria’s banking sector continues to be drowned with high volumes and recurring non-performing loans (NPLs), and this is often concentrated in sectors such as oil and gas, power, and government-linked projects. Though with the trend of events, one may say that regulatory forbearance has helped maintain surface stability in the sector, no doubt it has also masked underlying vulnerabilities.

The truth is that a credible recapitalisation exercise must confront this reality head-on. Loan classification and provisioning standards should reflect economic truth, not regulatory convenience. Banks should not be allowed to carry impaired assets indefinitely while presenting healthy balance sheets to investors and the public.

Transparency around asset quality is not a threat to stability; it is a foundation for it.

How Foreign Exchange Risk Quietly Amplifies Financial Shocks

Few risks have damaged bank balance sheets in recent years as severely as foreign exchange volatility. Many banks continue to carry significant FX mismatches, borrowing short-term in foreign currency while lending long-term to clients with naira revenues.

During periods of FX adjustment, these mismatches can rapidly erode capital, no matter how well-capitalised a bank appears on paper. Recapitalisation must therefore be accompanied by tighter supervision of FX exposure, stronger disclosure requirements, and realistic stress testing that assumes adverse currency scenarios, not best-case outcomes.

Ignoring FX risk is no longer an option in a structurally import-dependent economy.

Concentration Risk and the Narrow Credit Base

Another long-standing weakness is excessive concentration risk. A disproportionate share of bank lending is often tied to a small number of large corporates or government-related exposures. While this may appear safe in the short term, it creates systemic vulnerability when those sectors face stress.

At the same time, the real economy, particularly SMEs and productive sectors, remains underfinanced because, over the years, Nigeria’s banks faced significant concentration risk, particularly in the oil and gas sector and in foreign currency exposure, while grappling with a narrow credit base characterised by limited lending to the private sector. This is due to high credit risk and tight monetary policy. Owing to this trend, recapitalisation should therefore be in alignment with policies that encourage credit diversification, improved credit underwriting, and smarter risk-sharing mechanisms, and not the other way round.

Therefore, it will be right to say that banks that grow larger but remain narrowly exposed do not strengthen the economy; they amplify its fragilities.

Risk Management in a Volatile Economy

The recurring inflation shocks, interest-rate swings, fiscal pressures, and external shocks are frequent features, not rare events, which show that Nigeria is not a low-volatility environment.

Currently, the Nigerian banking sector’s financial performance and investment returns are equally affected by various risks, including credit, liquidity, market, and operational risks.

Today, many banks still operate risk models that assume stability rather than disruption. Time has proven that risk management is essential for mitigating these risks and ensuring stability and profitability.

The apex bank must ensure that the recapitalisation process mandates robust, Nigeria-specific stress testing, and banks must demonstrate resilience under severe but plausible scenarios. This includes sharp currency depreciation, interest-rate spikes and sovereign stress. It must evolve from a compliance function to a strategic discipline.

Transparency and Financial Reporting

Investors, depositors, and analysts must be able to understand banks’ true financial positions without navigating a lack of transparent disclosures or creative accounting. Hence, public trust in the banking sector depends heavily on credible financial reporting.

The CBN should use recapitalisation to strengthen the International Financial Reporting Standard enforcement, disclosure standards, and audit quality. In championing this course, banks’ financial statements should clearly reflect capital adequacy, asset quality, related-party transactions, and off-balance-sheet exposures. Transparency is to enable confidence, not about exposing weakness.

Regulatory Consistency and Credibility

Policy credibility has been one of the greatest challenges for Nigeria’s financial regulators.

Abrupt changes, unclear timelines, and inconsistent enforcement undermine investor confidence and weaken reform outcomes.

Recapitalisation must be governed by clear rules, predictable timelines, and consistent enforcement. Both domestic and foreign investors need assurance that the rules of the game will not change midstream. Regulatory credibility is itself a form of capital.

Consumer Protection and Banking Ethics

While recapitalisation focuses on banks’ balance sheets, the public experiences banking through fees, service quality, dispute resolution, and ethical conduct. Persistent complaints about hidden charges and poor customer treatment erode trust in the system and a stronger banking sector must also be a fairer and more accountable one. It must be noted that strengthening consumer protection frameworks alongside recapitalisation will help rebuild public confidence and reinforce financial inclusion goals.

Too Big to Fail and How to Resolve Failure

Looking at what is obtainable in the system, larger, better-capitalised banks can also become systemically dangerous if failure resolution frameworks are weak. This requires that recapitalisation should therefore be accompanied by credible plans for resolving distressed banks without destabilising the entire system or resorting to taxpayer-funded bailouts, which has been the norm in the Nigerian banking sector today. The cynic might say that recapitalisation simply made big banks bigger and empowered dominant shareholders. However, a more prospective approach invites all stakeholders, including regulators, customers, civil society and bankers themselves, to co-design the next chapter of Nigerian banking; one that balances scale with inclusion, profitability with impact, and stability with innovation.

Clear resolution mechanisms reduce moral hazard and reinforce market discipline.

A Moment That Must Not Be Wasted

Recapitalisation is not merely a financial exercise; it is a governance and trust reset opportunity. If the CBN focuses solely on capital numbers, Nigeria risks repeating a familiar cycle of apparent stability followed by crisis.

The banking sector can lay a solid foundation that truly supports economic transformation if recapitalization is used to address governance failures, asset quality, FX risk, transparency, and regulatory credibility.

Nigeria does not just need bigger banks. It needs better banks, institutions that are resilient, transparent, well-governed, and trusted by the public they serve. Hence, it must be a system that creates a more robust buffer against shocks and positions Nigerian banking as a global competitor capable of funding a $1 trillion economy, as the case may be.

This recapitalisation moment must be about building durability, not just size. The cost of missing that opportunity would be far greater than the cost of getting it right.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]

Continue Reading

Trending