E-Financial
Court Orders First Bank to Pay Interest of N2.9Bn to FAAN

A Lagos Federal High Court has ordered First Bank of Nigeria (FBN) Plc to pay the sum of N2,937,925,388.52 billion, to the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) being an interest for not disclosing under-payment of credit interest on deposits in 14 different current accounts domiciled with the bank.

Justice Ayokunle Faji, while delivering judgment in suit numbered FHC/L/CS/67/2021 filed by FAAN, also held that First Bank breached its own professional Code of Ethics, by not disclosing all information on goods and services offered, including the interest rate payable by the bank.
Justice Faji made the above orders and declarations in a judgment delivered on October 9, 2023.
The plaintiff (FAAN) had in its originating Summons dated and filed on January 13, 2021, urged the Court to determine whether First Bank is entitled to pay interest on the applicant’s (FAAN) current deposits in lime with the Central Bank of Nigeria Monetary, Credit Foreign Trade and Exchange Policy Guideline of 2004/2005 No 37, Section 3, Sub-Section 3.2.4(a) Interest Policy, which states that “Banks shall continue to pay interest on current account deposits at rates negotiated between them and their customers.
Consequently, the applicant seeks the following reliefs: “An order for the payment of interest on the underpayment of interest on the current account deposits of the applicant at the respondent’s maximum lending rate from 1st September 2018 up to the date of refund.
“An order for the payment of the sum of N2,117,955, 865.01 billion, being interest on underpayment of credit interest on deposits in the applicant’s current account numbers.
“An Order for the payment of the sum of N819, 969, 523.51 million, being credit interest payable on the applicant’s current account deposits in account numbers: A declaration that in pursuance of the Central Bank of Nigeria Monetary, Credit, Foreign Trade and Exchange Policy Guidelines (Monetary Policy Circular), the Applicant is entitled to credit interest on its current account numbers 2004728814, 2004730671, 2004731403, 2004747983, 2012104714, 2012114742, 2013512417, 2020114013, 2020114439, 2020119427, 2020210135, 2020,211974, 2020213521 and 2020268284; deposits with the respondent.
“A declaration that in pursuance of the Central Bank of Nigeria Monetary, Credit, Foreign Trade and Exchange Policy Guidelines (Monetary Policy Circular), the applicant is entitled to receive interest on the credit interest the respondent failed to pay on the current account deposits of the applicant.”
But, in response to the Originating Summons, the First Bank in its 32-paragraph counter affidavit, raised two issues for determination to wit: “Whether having regards to the absence of any negotiation and/or agreement between the applicant and the respondent for payment of interest on the applicant’s current account with the respondent, the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought on the face of the Originating Summons?
“Whether given the Central Bank of Nigeria’s circular “Time Bar for Resolution of Customer’s Complaint” dated 21st August 2015, this suit is statute-barred and constitutes an abuse of court process?”
First Bank stated that by Section 3.2.10 (a) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Monetary, Credit, Foreign Trade and Exchange Policy Guidelines, the words used in the said Section 3.2.10. (a) are clear and plain and should be given literal or ordinary meaning. It follows, therefore, that before interest can be paid on a current account, the interest rate should have been negotiated and agreed upon between the customer and the bank.
The bank further argued that the applicant did not exhibit or refer to any document to show that it approached or negotiated with the respondent on the interest rate to be paid by the respondent for the credit balances in the applicant’s current accounts with the respondent.
It also stated that the applicant has failed to discharge the burden placed on it by placing sufficient materials before the court, therefore the reliefs sought cannot be granted.
Delivering judgement on the issues raised, Justice Faji held that in line with paragraph 2 of the Bank Customer Bill of Rights and Duties and paragraph 3.5(b) of Nigerian Banking Industry (Professional Code of Ethics and Business Conduct), First Bank is duty bound to disclose to the applicant all information on goods and services offered.
“This seems to me to impose a duty on the defendant as part of the ethics of the banking profession. This is where I therefore have reason to hold that the defendant indeed failed to disclose the interest regime to the plaintiff without which the plaintiff would not have been able to know that the interest was to be negotiated and thus make the first move.
“In any event, it is apparent that a banker owes its customer a fiduciary duty and given the rules guiding the ethics of the banking industry, it seems to me that there was a duty on the defendant to inform the plaintiff of its right to negotiate interest. That duty is imposed by the code of ethics aforesaid which is binding on all banks in Nigeria, the defendant inclusive.
“That is in my view the basis for the fiduciary duty owed the plaintiff by the defendant. It is a code of ethics which the defendant ought to have followed and by which it is bound. By not disclosing such information to the plaintiff, the – defendant had breached its professional code of ethics and that in my view was done to gain an unfair advantage over the plaintiff as regards the payment of interest on current accounts. By those rules, the plaintiff is entitled to information upon which to have a basis to negotiate interest which was not availed by the defendant.
“Furthermore and by paragraph 3.5(b) of Nigerian Banking Industry (Professional Code of Ethics and Business Conduct) 2014, banks are under an obligation to inform their customers about the interest rates applicable to/payable on their deposit, fixed, savings and other accounts.
“This shows clearly that the defendant violated its code of ethics. It is also not in dispute that the interest has not been paid. The plaintiff calculated its expert. The defendant contends that the defendant was not involved in the computation of the interest as done by the plaintiff’s consultant.
“The defendant did not however state its calculation or show its own experts’ report. It also did not an expert show that plaintiffs’ calculations are wrong. I believe the contents of the report tendered by plaintiff’s expert who has shown evidence of experience in matters of this nature.
“I hold that the sums therein stated are due to be paid by the defendant and ought to be so paid. I hold that the sums determined as unpaid interest are due to the plaintiff from the defendant and the defendant is therefore ordered to pay the sums claimed.
“This action therefore succeeds. I answer the 4 questions for determination in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff. I grant the declarations sought in reliefs 1 and 3 and make the orders sought in reliefs 2, 4 and 5,” the judge held.
E-Financial
CBN Revokes Licenses of Two Mortgage Banks, NDIC Begins Liquidation

Nigeria’s banking regulators have moved to shut down two mortgage lenders after prolonged financial distress, as authorities intensify efforts to enforce capital discipline and restore confidence in the country’s housing finance system.

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has withdrew the operating licenses of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc, setting in motion a liquidation process that will see insured depositors paid by the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC).
The revocation marks a decisive intervention by the central bank, which said the lenders repeatedly failed to meet regulatory standards despite supervisory actions.
In a statement signed by Hakama Sidi Ali, acting director of corporate communications, the CBN said the decision was taken under the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, BOFIA 2020, and the revised guidelines for mortgage banks, as it seeks to re-position the sub-sector and entrench compliance.
“As part of its efforts to re-position the mortgage sub-sector and promote a culture of compliance with relevant laws and regulations, the Central Bank of Nigeria has revoked the licenses of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc,” the statement said.
The central bank said the two institutions breached several provisions of BOFIA 2020 and regulatory guidelines, citing weak capital, balance-sheet strain and persistent non-compliance.
According to the CBN, the lenders failed to meet the minimum paid-up share capital requirement for their licence category and did not have sufficient assets to meet their liabilities.
The lenders were also “critically undercapitalised with a capital adequacy ratio below the prudential minimum ratio as prescribed by the CBN,” the regulator said, adding that both institutions failed to comply with several directives imposed by the central bank over time.
The action highlights the CBN’s broader push to tighten oversight of Nigeria’s financial system after years of regulatory forbearance, particularly in niche segments such as mortgage banking that have been weighed down by funding constraints, rising credit risk and weak profitability.
While the sector accounts for a small share of total banking assets, it is viewed as key to expanding access to long-term housing finance in Africa’s most populous economy.
The CBN said it remains focused on safeguarding systemic stability. “The CBN remains committed to its core mandate of ensuring financial system stability,” the statement said.
Following the withdrawal of the licenses, the NDIC was appointed liquidator of the two lenders and has begun the process of winding them up, including reimbursing eligible depositors.
In a separate statement on Tuesday, the Corporation said it had commenced liquidation in line with the NDIC Act 2023 and started verification and payment of insured deposits to customers of the defunct banks.
Depositors are entitled to receive up to ₦2 million per depositor, with payments to be made using Bank Verification Numbers (BVN) to identify alternate bank accounts for automatic credit.
Customers with balances above the insured limit will receive the initial ₦2 million, while the remaining sums will be paid as liquidation dividends after the realisation of assets and recovery of outstanding loans, the NDIC said. The corporation added that it would begin selling the banks’ assets and intensify debt recovery efforts to accelerate payments of uninsured balances.
The NDIC advised depositors to submit claims either online or physically at branches of the closed banks during the verification period, with valid identification and proof of account ownership. Creditors were also asked to file claims, with payments to follow after all depositors have been fully settled, in line with statutory provisions.
Staff and shareholders of the defunct banks will only be paid after depositors and creditors, from proceeds realised during liquidation, the NDIC said, while urging borrowers to repay outstanding loans and assuring the public that other licensed banks remain safe and sound.
E-Financial
CBN Revokes Licences of Aso, Union Homes Mortgage Banks Over Regulatory Breaches

Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has revoked the operating licences of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc, citing persistent regulatory breaches that undermined the safety and soundness of the institutions.

CBN
In a statement issued on Tuesday, the Acting Director of Corporate Communications, Mrs. Hakama Sidi Ali, said the decision was part of renewed efforts to sanitise the mortgage sub-sector and enforce strict compliance with banking regulations.
According to her, the affected institutions violated several provisions of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) 2020 and the Revised Guidelines for Mortgage Banks in Nigeria.
“The institutions failed to meet minimum paid-up share capital requirements, were critically undercapitalised, and did not comply with multiple regulatory directives. They also lacked sufficient assets to cover liabilities,” Sidi Ali said.
She explained that the revocation was intended to strengthen confidence in the mortgage sector and ensure that only institutions capable of operating safely and soundly are allowed to continue business.
The apex bank stressed that it remains resolute in enforcing regulatory standards across all segments of the financial system.
“The Central Bank of Nigeria remains committed to its core mandate of ensuring financial system stability,” Sidi Ali added.
Nigeria CommunicationsWeek reports that the move follows repeated warnings from the CBN in recent years, urging mortgage operators to improve capitalisation, governance, and compliance with statutory requirements.
Industry analysts say the action is expected to reinforce discipline within the mortgage banking segment and restore public trust in the sub-sector, which has struggled with weak capitalisation and governance challenges.
E-Financial
Tax Reform or Financial Exclusion? The Trouble with Mandatory TINs

By Blaise Udunze
It is not only questionable but an aberration that a nation where over 38million Nigerians remain financially excluded, where trust in institutions is fragile, and where citizens are pressured under the weight of rising living costs, the use of Tax Identification Number (TIN) has been specified as the only option for their bank accounts operation from January 1, 2026 by the Federal Government of Nigeria.

Tax Reform
In practice, the policy spearheaded by Taiwo Oyedele, Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, is rooted in the Nigerian Tax Administration Act (NTAA), and the intention can be understood in the areas of improving tax compliance, widening the tax net, and formalizing economic activities. But in practice, the directive risks becoming yet another well-meaning reform that punishes the wrong people, disrupts financial inclusiveness, and potentially destabilises an already stressed economy.
Yes, Nigeria needs tax reforms. Yes, the country must broaden its tax base. And yes, public revenues must increase to address fiscal pressures.
But compelling citizens to obtain TINs as a condition for operating bank accounts is the wrong tool for the right objective.
Below are five core arguments against the directive, and sustainable alternatives that actually strengthen tax compliance without endangering banking access or punishing informal earners.
The Directive Risks Deepening Financial Exclusion
Nigeria still struggles with financial inclusion. According to several official assessments, over 38 million adults remain outside the formal financial system. Many of them operate small, irregular businesses, survive through subsistence earnings, or depend on cash-based livelihoods.
The Federal Government’s compulsory TIN-for-bank-accounts policy is built on the assumption that every banked Nigerian is structured, organised, and tax-ready. This is false.
For instance, the rural market woman with N30,000 in rotating savings, the okada rider who deposits cash once a week, the petty trader using a mobile POS agent account, the retiring pensioner managing a small monthly income, and the migrant worker sends small remittances to their family. These are not tax evaders; they are survivalists.
Most operate bank accounts not because they run formal businesses, but because those accounts are essential to modern financial life: receiving transfers, accessing loans, participating in digital commerce, saving against emergencies, and avoiding the risks of moving cash in insecure environments.
By creating an additional bureaucratic barrier, the directive risks pushing millions back into a cash-dominant shadow economy, precisely the opposite outcome of what Nigeria’s financial-sector reforms are trying to achieve.
Bank Accounts Are Not Proof of Taxable Income
The NTAA clarifies that the TIN requirement applies only to taxable persons, individuals engaged in trade, employment, or income-generating activities.
But herein lies the problem: banks cannot determine who is “taxable” and who is not. Banks only see deposits and withdrawals. They do not audit the source or consistency of income. They are not tax authorities.
A student may run a small online clothing resale gig. A retiree may occasionally rent out farmland.
A dependent may receive cash support from a relative abroad. A job seeker may get intermittent gifts from family.
Who decides which of these scenarios qualifies as taxable? Banks? FIRS? Or will citizens be expected to self-declare under threat of account restrictions?
The result will be confusion, over-compliance, and mass panic with banks indiscriminately demanding TINs from everyone to avoid regulatory penalties.
This not only contradicts the spirit of the law but also exposes ordinary Nigerians to harassment and arbitrary compliance requirements.
The Policy Could Trigger Disruption, Panic Withdrawals, and Cash Hoarding
Whenever Nigerians perceive threats to their access to funds, the natural reaction is withdrawal and hoarding. We saw it during:
– the 2023 Naira redesign crisis,
– the 2016 TSA-bank consolidation tightening, and multiple periods of financial instability.
Telling citizens that bank accounts may face “operational restrictions” if they do not obtain a TIN creates a predictable behavioural response: people will rush to withdraw money.
This would be disastrous for a banking system already pressured by:
– high interest rates,
– inflation eroding deposits,
– rising loan defaults, and
– declining public trust.
Any government policy that unintentionally creates an incentive for citizens to flee the formal banking system is counterproductive.
The TIN Requirement Will Become a Bureaucratic Nightmare
Even if millions of Nigerians want to comply, the system is not ready. Nigeria’s administrative infrastructure does not have the capacity to process tens of millions of TIN registrations within months without:
– long queues,
– delays,
– data mismatches,
– duplicate records, and
– systemic errors.
The National Identity Number (NIN)-SIM registration experience is a painful reminder of what happens when ambitious policy meets weak execution capacity.
– Citizens spent months in overcrowded enrolment centres.
– Millions were blocked from services.
– Data inconsistencies persisted.
– The economy suffered productivity losses.
If Nigeria could not seamlessly synchronise NIN and SIM data, how will it synchronise NIN, BVN, and TIN at a national scale without dislocation?
Forcing TIN Adoption Ignores the Real Problem: Nigeria’s Broken Tax Culture
The Federal Government’s real challenge is not that citizens lack TINs, but that they lack trust in how taxes are used.
A government cannot widen the tax net when:
– tax leakages remain widespread,
– citizens feel services do not match taxation,
– corruption perceptions are high,
– government spending lacks transparency, and
– taxpayers do not feel seen, heard, or valued.
Coercion does not build a tax culture. Engagement does. Policy does not create legitimacy. Accountability does.
If the Federal Government wants Nigerians to freely participate in the tax system, it must earn legitimacy first, not mandate compliance through financial restrictions.
What the Government Should Do Instead: A Smarter Path to Tax Reform
Instead of enforcing a policy that may backfire economically and socially, the Federal Government can adopt four smarter, people-centred alternatives.
– Automatic TIN Issuance Linked to NIN and BVN
Rather than forcing Nigerians to apply manually, the government should:
· auto-generate TINs for all existing BVN/NIN holders,
· send the TINs via SMS, email, and bank alerts,
· allow self-activation only when needed for tax obligations.
This eliminates queues, delays, and confusion.
– Build a Voluntary Tax Compliance Culture Through Transparency and Incentives
Tax morale improves when citizens see value. Government should:
· publish annual audited reports of tax revenue use,
· incentivise compliant taxpayers with benefits (priority access to government grants, credit scoring, etc.),
· simplify tax filings for small businesses.
People comply more when they feel respected, not coerced.
– Target High-Value Tax Evaders, Not Low-Income Account Holders
Nigeria’s real tax leakages come from:
· large corporations shifting profits,
· politically exposed persons,
· illicit financial flows,
· multinational tax avoidance strategies,
· the informal “big money” class operating outside the banking system.
Instead of threatening small depositors, the government should strengthen:
· FIRS intelligence and investigation units,
· inter-agency data integration (CAC, Customs, Immigration),
· beneficial ownership transparency enforcement.
The fight against tax evasion should focus on those hiding billions, not those depositing thousands.
– Strengthen Digital Tax Platforms for Easy Self-Registration and Compliance
If tax registration becomes as easy as opening a social media account, compliance will rise naturally. The government should build:
· a mobile-first tax app,
· simplified online TIN retrieval,
· one-click tax filing for gig workers and small traders.
Digital convenience can achieve what regulatory coercion cannot.
Reform Should Not Punish the Public
No doubt, tax reforms are needed urgently, but they must come with a human face, an intelligent, equitable, and aligned with the realities of ordinary Nigerians.
The TIN-for-bank-accounts policy, while well-intentioned, risks undermining financial inclusion, triggering economic instability, and imposing unnecessary burdens on millions who are not tax evaders but survival-based earners.
Good tax policy is built on trust, not fear. On transparency, not threats. On civic legitimacy, not administrative compulsion.
If the Federal Government truly wants to modernise Nigeria’s tax system, it must focus not on restricting citizens’ access to their own money, but on:
· repairing tax trust,
· digitising compliance,
· targeting the real evaders, and
· making participation easier, not harder.
Financial inclusion took Nigeria decades to build. We cannot afford a policy that carelessly reverses these gains.
A better tax system is possible, but it must start with the people, not with their bank accounts.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos, can be reached via: [email protected]
E-Financial2 days agoSupreme Court Clears Fidelity Bank in ₦225bn Sagecom Saga
E-Financial2 days agoPreventing Financial Crimes Amid Mounting Insecurity: Why Following the Money is Now a Survival Imperative
E-Financial2 days agoUnion Bank Clinches Top Workplace Practice Honour at Sustainability Awards
Broadcasting2 days agoDavido, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, Karl Toriola, Others To Be Honoured At The Most Influential People of African Descent Awards In Lagos
News1 day agoSiBAN New Executive Council to Champion Vision for Nigeria’s Digital Economy
E-Financial1 day agoTax Reform or Financial Exclusion? The Trouble with Mandatory TINs
Telecom1 day agoNCC Blames NOGASA for Abuja Outage
Telecom2 days agoNITDA Charts Path for Kano as Innovation Hub

















