Connect with us

E-Financial

Tinubu’s 15% Fuel Duty: Taxing Pain in a Broken Economy

Published

on

Kindly share this post

By Blaise Udunze

When a nation is bleeding economically, with inflation at historic highs and citizens gasping for survival, one expects government policy to offer relief, not suffocation. Yet, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s approval of a 15 per cent import duty on petrol and diesel does the exact opposite for it taxing pain in a broken economy.

According to a presidential letter dated October 21, 2025, and addressed to the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA), Tinubu directed the immediate implementation of the new import tariff as part of what the government described as a “market responsive import tariff framework.”

Signed by his Private Secretary, Damilotun Aderemi, the memo followed a proposal by the Executive Chairman of the FIRS, Zacch Adedeji, who claimed the measure was part of “ongoing reforms to boost local refining, ensure price stability, and strengthen the naira-based oil economy” in line with the so-called Renewed Hope Agenda.

In theory, it sounds noble with the aim to protect local refineries, promote energy security, and build a self-sustaining oil economy. But in practice, this policy is another dagger in the heart of Nigerians already crushed by the triple burden of fuel inflation, currency collapse, and dwindling purchasing power.

Because let’s face it, you cannot tax your way out of poverty when the people are already too poor to pay for survival.

The New Tariff: A Policy with Pain Written All Over It

Under the directive, importers will now pay a 15 per cent ad-valorem duty on the cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) value of imported petrol and diesel. The government argues that this will “align import costs with domestic market realities” and “protect local producers from unfair pricing.”

But industry data reveal what this truly means at current CIF levels, the new tariff will raise the landing cost of petrol by about N99.72 per litre. In other words, the already painful pump price hovering around N920 per litre in many parts of Nigeria could easily surpass N1,000 per litre within weeks.

This isn’t speculation, it is arithmetic. Depot operators have already sounded the alarm.

“As it is, the price of fuel may go above N1,000 per litre. I don’t know why the government will be adding more to people’s suffering,” one operator lamented in an interview.

Another industry source added, “Some of the importers are working in alignment with Dangote, which is why the last price increase was general. All players raised their prices at once. Without a clear framework to stabilise market forces, this import duty will worsen the hardship faced by consumers.”

So, while the government insists the duty “won’t choke supply or inflate prices beyond sustainable thresholds,” market realities tell a different story. The moment you tax importation of essential energy products in a country that barely refines any petrol domestically, you are effectively taxing the daily lives of millions who depend on that fuel to move, work, and eat.

An Economy Already in Free Fall

Nigeria’s economy today stands on the brink. The naira has lost nearly half its value since mid-2023, driving annual inflation above 34 percent, while food inflation hovers at 40 percent, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). In one of the world’s largest oil producing nations, fuel prices quintupled, increasing more than 514 percent from N175 in May 2023 to N900, transportation costs have skyrocketed with the “agbuero” extortion compounding issues, small businesses are collapsing, and households are cutting meals to survive.

When fuel prices rise, everything else follows, from food to transportation, rent, and the cost of living. The import duty therefore becomes a multiplier of misery, cascading through the economy in ways the government either underestimates or deliberately ignores.

Manufacturers who depend on diesel to power their factories will pass the extra cost to consumers. Transporters will raise fares. Traders will hike prices. Schools, hospitals, and logistics companies will all adjust their rates upward.

Within a few months, the 15 percent duty will translate into another round of inflationary spiral, deepening poverty and eroding the value of wages even further.

According to the National Bureau of Statistics, over 133 million Nigerians already live-in multidimensional poverty. While the World Bank’s 139 million estimate translates to roughly six in 10 Nigerians living below poverty line. This new tax could easily push millions more into deeper deprivation.

Protecting Local Refineries or Creating a Monopoly?

The government justifies this new tariff as a way to “protect local refineries.” But this explanation exposes the deeper structural danger that Nigeria may be walking straight into a private monopoly in the petroleum sector with Dangote Refinery as the ultimate winner.

While protecting local industry is a legitimate policy goal, doing so without ensuring fair competition is economic suicide. The reality today is that Dangote Refinery dominates the refining landscape both in size and political influence.

Most of the smaller modular refineries in the Niger Delta are struggling to start production due to lack of crude supply, high financing costs, and regulatory uncertainty. The government’s import duty, therefore, does not create a level playing field; it simply tilts the market decisively in favour of Dangote.

If importers are taxed heavily while one giant refinery backed by political access and incentives controls the supply chain, the result is a monopoly, not a free market. And when one player dominates fuel production and pricing in a country of over 200 million people, the economy is at his mercy.

Dangote could dictate wholesale prices, influence market supply, and quietly shape government policy, all under the banner of “local protection.” Already, marketers allege that the last round of price increases was coordinated across the board, hinting at a shadow monopoly forming in plain sight.

This is dangerous for any economy, but for Nigeria where corruption and patronage distort every policy, it is catastrophic.

Energy Security Built on Fragile Foundations

The FIRS memo to the President claimed that the new tariff aims to “strengthen local refining capacity and ensure affordable supply.” But local refining remains largely aspirational.

As of today, Nigeria still imports nearly all its petrol, despite having four state owned refineries that are perpetually moribund. The Dangote Refinery, although a technical marvel, is still struggling to achieve full-scale petrol output and relies on imported crude for much of its operations.

The modular refineries, which were supposed to fill the gap, are barely surviving. Without access to crude oil feedstock often monopolised by larger operators, they cannot compete.

So, who exactly is being protected by this policy?

Certainly not the small modular refineries in Edo, Bayelsa, or Rivers. Not the ordinary Nigerian who will now pay N1,000 for a litre of fuel. Not even the struggling logistics sector, already crippled by high energy costs.

The only entity that benefits is a dominant private player who can withstand the short-term shock and then profit massively once competitors are priced out.

Policy Contradictions and Economic Disconnect

The tragedy of this decision lies not only in its cruelty but in its confusion. The same administration that preaches “ease of doing business” and “market freedom” is imposing tariffs that stifle competition and hurt consumers.

When President Tinubu removed fuel subsidy in May 2023, he promised that “subsidy is gone” and that market forces would drive fair pricing. But over a year later, Nigerians have learned that what replaced subsidy is not a free market but it is a managed monopoly, backed by selective protectionism and opaque pricing.

The contradiction is stark. You cannot remove subsidies on one hand and then impose punitive tariffs on the other. You cannot preach deregulation while protecting a single dominant player.

This isn’t market reform; it is economic confusion disguised as policy innovation.

The Human Cost: Everyday Nigerians Paying the Price

For the ordinary Nigerians, the macroeconomics of import tariffs mean little. What matters is survival.

A family man who spends N2,000 daily on transport now faces N3,000. A small business owner running a diesel generator must now budget twice as much for power. Food vendors, farmers, delivery riders, all are trapped in a cycle of rising costs and shrinking incomes.

Each increase in fuel price is another wound to the working class. And when government justifies it with lofty phrases like “energy security” and “local capacity protection,” it insults the intelligence of citizens who know that their suffering funds elite comfort.

The average Nigerian no longer trusts policy announcements because they have learned that every “reform” means more hardship.

Inflationary Tsunami Ahead

Economic experts have already warned that this new import duty could ignite a fresh wave of inflation. Since transportation is a key cost component in nearly every sector, a 15 percent increase in fuel import costs will ripple through the entire economy.

Analysts at SBM Intelligence estimate that transport fares could rise by another 25–30 percent, while food inflation could easily cross 45 percent by early 2026 if the policy is not reversed.

This isn’t mere speculation. We have been here before. After subsidy removal in 2023, inflation jumped from 22 percent to 34 percent within months. The difference now is that citizens have exhausted their coping mechanisms.

When people can no longer eat, they revolt. The Nigerian state risks pushing its citizens to that breaking point.

Killing Local Competition Before It is Born

Ironically, while the government claims to be “protecting local refining,” this policy will likely kill smaller refineries before they gain traction.

Most modular refineries were financed by private capital at high interest rates. They need steady cash flow and competitive margins to survive. But when the government grants one mega-refinery privileged protection and imposes heavy duties on imports, it destroys the business case for smaller players.

No investor will finance modular refineries if the regulatory environment favours one company. And when competition dies, innovation dies with it.

Nigeria could have built a diversified refining ecosystem, with multiple regional players supplying local markets and driving down costs. Instead, it is creating a single industrial empire whose influence will dwarf even that of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC).

That is not industrial policy. It is economic feudalism.

A Mirage of Regional Price Comparisons

The government argues that even with the new tariff, Nigeria’s pump prices would remain below regional averages: N964 per litre compared to Senegal’s $1.76, Côte d’Ivoire’s $1.52, and Ghana’s $1.37.

But this comparison is disingenuous. Those countries have stable power grids, working public transportation, and better social safety nets. Nigerians don’t.

In a nation where fuel directly powers homes, businesses, and schools due to epileptic electricity supply, any increase in fuel price hits far harder. Comparing Nigeria to Senegal or Ghana ignores the structural poverty and infrastructure decay that amplify every price shock.

It is like comparing a man who walks barefoot to another who drives a car and both are on the road, but one feels every stone.

Taxing Misery in the Name of Reform

Policies like this expose the moral blindness of governance in Nigeria. They treat citizens as economic statistics, not human beings.

The government sees fuel as a fiscal problem to be taxed, not a lifeline that millions depend on. It assumes that raising revenue justifies raising suffering.

But no reform can succeed if it crushes the very people it is meant to uplift.

Even from a fiscal standpoint, this duty will not deliver the revenue the government expects. Higher pump prices will reduce demand, encourage smuggling, and fuel black-market trading. The result will be less revenue, more inflation, and higher corruption.

Policy Alternatives That Make Sense

If the goal is truly to strengthen local refining and energy security, there are better, smarter paths to take.

  • Provide access to crude oil for modular refineries under transparent, fair terms.
  • Offer tax incentives for local refiners, not punitive import tariffs that hurt consumers.
  • Encourage competition through regulatory equity, not protectionism.
  • Invest in energy infrastructure, including pipelines, storage, and distribution to reduce logistics costs.
  • Reform the power sector so that industries are not forced to rely on diesel for survival.

Nigeria doesn’t need more taxes; it needs intelligent policies that balance protection with affordability.

The Politics of Pain

Let’s be clear, this 15 percent duty is as political as it is economic. It serves powerful business interests cloaked in nationalist rhetoric.

Tinubu’s government has consistently framed hardship as “sacrifice” for a better future. But when sacrifice becomes perpetual, it ceases to be patriotic, it becomes exploitation.

The political cost of this decision could be severe. Nigerians who tolerated subsidy removal with the promise of reform may not tolerate another shock that pushes them into darkness.

Already, discontent is growing. Labour unions are preparing for protests, civil society groups are calling for reversal, and the opposition is mobilising public anger.

If unchecked, this could become the defining crisis of the Tinubu presidency as a symbol of reform gone wrong.

The Road Not Taken

There was an opportunity to rebuild Nigeria’s energy sector through inclusive, transparent reforms. The government could have used the subsidy savings to fix refineries, support modular operators, and invest in renewables.

Instead, it has chosen the easy route by taxing more, explaining less, and hoping for miracles.

But the laws of economics are unforgiving. You cannot squeeze revenue from an economy that is shrinking. You cannot build energy security on policies that destroy purchasing power. You cannot claim to protect the poor by enriching monopolies.

A Nation at the Crossroads

President Tinubu’s 15 percent fuel import duty is not just a fiscal measure, it is a moral test of governance.

It asks whether the Nigerian state still sees its people as citizens or merely as consumers to be taxed. Whether “Renewed Hope” means renewed hardship. Whether government policy can still reflect empathy, not elitism.

As petrol edges beyond N1,000 per litre and diesel costs strangle businesses, Nigerians are once again left to bear the consequences of decisions they did not make and cannot afford.

History will judge this administration not by its slogans, but by how it handled the suffering of its people.

And if the story of this fuel duty becomes the story of another failed reform of monopolies masquerading as markets, and citizens sacrificed for profit, then “Renewed Hope” will be remembered not as a promise, but as a warning.

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

 

 


Kindly share this post

Ugo Onwuaso is an ICT enthusiast. He believes technology should be used for general good. He holds a Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree from the Lagos state University. Dear Reader, Your support matters. But we believe that technology makes life more exciting and helps improve the lives of people around Nigeria and indeed the world. That is why, we have devoted our energy to independent reportage of technology and finance and how they affect lives. Our incisive and analytical view of how technology news affects the daily life help individuals and organizations make up their minds. Quality journalism costs money. Today, we're asking that you support us to do more. Kindly support our effort to deliver technology and finance journalism to everyone in the world. Donate as little as N1,000. Bank transfers can be made to: UBA Plc 1017156876 Communication Week Media Ltd

E-Financial

Ventures Platform, Nigerian Firm Raises another $64m

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Ventures Platform, Nigerian venture capital firm has announced the first close of its second Africa-focused fund, raising $64 million of a planned $75 million.

Ventures Platform, Nigerian Firm Raises another $64m

Dotun Olowoporoku, general partner; and Kola Aina, founding partner, Ventures Platform

The fund aims to boost financing for African technology startups and help drive Series A funding rounds, a stage that remains difficult for many young companies on the continent.

VP Pan-African Fund II (VP PAF II) will focus on firms in strategic sectors including fintech, healthtech, agritech, edtech, and artificial intelligence.

With the new vehicle, Ventures Platform plans to expand beyond West Africa, increasing its presence in Francophone and North Africa while strengthening its base in Nigeria.

“The continent’s innovation opportunity is boundless, the needs are immense,” said Kola Aina, founding partner of Ventures Platform. “[…] Realising its full impact demands smart contextual capital, post-investment value creation, and a commitment to de-risking groundbreaking market-creating innovations.”

Aina added that VP PAF II will broaden the firm’s scope and deepen its commitment “to identify and back innovators addressing the continent’s chronic non-consumption problems.”

The first close drew significant institutional support, with 70% of the first fund’s partners renewing their investment.

New backers include the Nigerian Federal Government via the Bank of Industry’s iDICE program, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), Standard Bank, British International Investment (BII), Proparco, MSMEDA, and AfricaGrow.

Since its launch in 2016, Ventures Platform has invested in more than 90 African startups.

Its first fund, closed in 2022, delivered strong returns and helped portfolio companies progress from seed to Series B and C stages.

Supported startups include Raenest, SeamlessHR, LemFi, Remedial Health, Thrive Agric, and Moniepoint.

Beyond capital investment, the fund seeks to strengthen the resilience and growth of Africa’s tech ecosystem by helping innovative companies scale in sectors where access to funding remains limited.

According to the African Private Capital Association (AVCA), African startups raised about $2.6 billion in 2024, less than 1% of global venture capital.

Against this backdrop, Ventures Platform’s new fund is seen as a key step toward attracting more local and international capital to support the continent’s startup growth.

 

 

 

 


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

E-Financial

Flutterwave CEO @ CNN Global Perspectives Summit, Envisions Building Africa’s ‘Payment Superhighway’

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Olugbenga “GB” Agboola, founder and CEO, Flutterwave, has shared his vision for Africa’s digital economy, one where Flutterwave serves as the “payment superhighway”, boosting intra- and inter-African trade by connecting the continent to the rest of the world and vice versa.

Flutterwave CEO @ CNN Global Perspectives Summit, Envisions Building Africa’s ‘Payment Superhighway’

He stated this at CNN’s inaugural Global Perspectives summit with the theme; “Africa’s Role in a Changing World,” .

The event brought together public leaders, entrepreneurs, and innovators to explore how Africa’s dynamic emerging economies and vibrant younger generation can drive a new era of inclusive and sustainable global growth.

Agboola joined Lucy Liu, co-founder and president, Airwallex; Alex Okosi, Managing Director, Google Africa; and Serigne Dioum, CEO, MTN Group Fintech, in a session titled “Fueling the Next-Generation Startup Ecosystem,” moderated by veteran CNN anchor Richard Quest.

Acknowledging the continent’s fragmented regulatory environment as a challenge that increases the cost of scaling, Agboola noted that progress is being made.

He cited the recent memorandum of understanding between Ghana and Rwanda, aimed at streamlining cross-border fintech operations, as an excellent example of progress.

“Across the continent, regulators are very impressive. They understand how to enable the networks of growth and are focused on empowering players who have the infrastructure and understand the market,” Agboola said, highlighting the critical role of regulation and infrastructure in sustaining the momentum of Africa’s startup ecosystem.

Other panelists echoed Agboola’s optimism about Africa’s regulatory evolution and potential for digital transformation.

Alex Okosi highlighted that regulators across the continent increasingly recognise the need for open markets, while Lucy Liu noted that their priorities often focus on ecosystem integrity and protection.

\


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

E-Financial

Banks’ N1.96Trn Black Hole: Who Took the Loans, Who Defaulted, and Why the Real Economy Suffers

Published

on

Kindly share this post

By Blaise Udunze

Nigeria’s banking sector has entered a season of reckoning. Eight of the nation’s biggest banks have collectively booked N1.96 trillion in impairment charges in just the first nine months of 2025 which represents a staggering 49 percent increase from the N1.32 trillion recorded in the same period of 2024.

Behind these figures lies a deeper question that speaks to the very soul of Nigerian finance on who received these loans that have now turned sour? Were they the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), entrepreneurs, and job creators that fuel real economic growth, or were they politically connected insiders and corporate giants whose failures are now being quietly written off at the expense of the public trust?

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) is unwinding its pandemic-era forbearance regime, a policy that allowed banks to restructure non-performing loans and delay recognizing potential losses. It was a relief measure meant to protect the economy during the COVID-19 shock. But as the CBN begins to phase out this regulatory cushion, the hidden weaknesses in many banks’ balance sheets are now coming to light.

The apex bank has since placed several lenders under close supervisory engagement, restricting them from paying dividends, issuing executive bonuses, or expanding offshore operations until they meet prudential standards. Those that have satisfied the conditions are being gradually transitioned out ahead of the full forbearance unwind scheduled for March 2026. This shift, though painful, is forcing banks to confront the true state of their loan books and the picture emerging is anything but flattering.

A review of financial statements of Nigeria’s top listed banks reveals the distribution of impairment charges as of the third quarter of 2025.

–       Zenith Bank Plc leads the pack with an eye-popping N781.5 billion in impairments, a 63.6 percent jump from N477.8 billion in 2024. Most of this amount to about N711 billion which occurred in the second quarter of 2025, driven by losses on foreign-currency loans and the end of regulatory forbearance. The bank’s gross loans declined by 9 percent to N10 trillion, and though its non-performing loan (NPL) ratio improved to 3 percent, that was largely due to massive write-offs.

–       Ecobank Transnational Incorporated (ETI) followed closely, provisioning N393.7 billion, up 47 percent year-on-year. Inflation, exchange-rate volatility, and macroeconomic stress in Nigeria and Ghana all contributed to loan-quality deterioration. Its total loan book stands at N21.1 trillion, with a modestly improved NPL ratio of 5.3 percent.

–       Access Holdings Plc posted impairments of N350 billion, representing a 141.5 percent surge year-on-year. About N255 billion of this came from loans to corporate entities and organizations, while the rest were loans to individuals. The bank cited changing macroeconomic conditions, inflationary pressures, and continued regulatory adjustments as the main culprits.

–       First HoldCo reported N288.9 billion, up 68.6 percent from N171.4 billion a year earlier. The bank attributed the spike to revaluation losses and write-downs of legacy exposures in the energy and trade sectors. Notably, about N100 billions of this was incurred in the third quarter alone.

–       United Bank for Africa (UBA) saw a dramatic improvement, cutting impairments from N123.5 billion to 56.9 billion, thanks to recoveries of N50.4 billion. The bank’s proactive loan-book management and collateral recoveries were credited for this performance.

–       Guaranty Trust Holding Company (GTCO) posted N69.8 billion, up slightly from N63.6 billion last year. The group wrote off a key oil-and-gas exposure but maintained strong profitability, with pre-tax return on equity (ROAE) of 39.5 percent.

–       Stanbic IBTC Holdings Plc recorded N11.6 billion, a sharp 80 percent decline year-on-year following recoveries of N16.3 billion on previously impaired loans.

–       Wema Bank Plc, with N11 billion in impairments, reported one of the lowest provisioning levels in the industry, despite 30 percent loan growth.

Altogether, these eight banks have set aside almost N2trillion in provisions to cover potential losses, a sum roughly equivalent to Nigeria’s entire federal capital expenditure for 2025.

There have been recent claims of a modest level of loan growth that is not commensurate with the overall expansion of the banking system’s balance sheet. Data from MoneyCentral shows that the combined total loans of the nine banks stood at N65.37 trillion as of September 2025, representing a 7.42 percent increase from N60.86 trillion in 2024. This contrasts sharply with a 52.63 percent surge in combined loans recorded in the 2024 financial year and a 32.64 percent increase in 2023, according to data gathered by MoneyCentral.

The underlying question, therefore, is which sectors of the economy are actually benefiting from this reported loan growth?

The real puzzle behind these numbers is who actually received these loans that are now being impaired. While banks have long positioned themselves as engines of private-sector growth, evidence suggests that much of their lending goes to a narrow base of corporate borrowers, politically connected elites, and oil-and-gas companies. These sectors offer large-ticket deals and quick interest earnings but also carry enormous risk.

In contrast, the SME sector, which employs more than 80 percent of Nigeria’s workforce, continues to face credit starvation. Many small businesses are forced to rely on expensive informal loans or personal savings because banks deem them too risky. The pattern is clear that banks chase safety and short-term profits over inclusive growth. When their big corporate bets fail, they write them off through impairment charges, but the cumulative effect is that real economic activity suffers while the credit system grows more fragile.

Another dimension to the problem is the banking industry’s heavy investment in government securities. Over the past two years, Nigerian banks have channeled N20.4 trillion into treasury bills, bonds, and other fixed-income instruments, reaping risk-free returns rather than funding productive ventures. This “securities trap” is profitable for banks but disastrous for the economy. Instead of financing factories, farmers, or tech innovators, banks earn easy money by lending to government thereby crowding out private investment and weakening the transmission of credit to the real sector. When interest rates rise or currency values swing, the market value of these securities falls, forcing banks to record mark-to-market losses that translate into impairment charges. Thus, the same safety net that shields banks from loan risk ends up creating financial volatility of its own.

Beyond macroeconomic challenges, Nigeria’s banks are also grappling with homegrown problems like insider abuses, weak corporate governance, and ineffective risk management. Past crises in the banking sector, from the 2009 consolidation fallout to the 2016 oil-sector shock, reveal a consistent pattern: directors and senior executives often have outsized influence over loan approvals, sometimes extending credit to themselves or politically exposed entities without proper collateral or due diligence. These insider-related loans frequently turn toxic, hidden under layers of restructuring and accounting manoeuvres until a regulatory audit forces exposure.

The recent impairments may well reflect a new cycle of these historical sins as loans extended under pressure, influence, or misplaced optimism, now coming home to roost as the CBN tightens oversight. Corporate-governance codes exist, but enforcement remains uneven. Some banks continue to operate “relationship banking,” were loyalty trumps prudence. The lack of whistleblower protection, combined with weak internal-audit independence, further compounds the problem. Until boards and regulators impose real consequences for reckless lending, the system will continue rewarding the wrong behaviour and punishing taxpayers and shareholders in the long run.

At its heart, impairment is a measure of how well banks anticipate and manage risk. A rise in impairments signals that too many loans were made without properly assessing the borrower’s ability to repay, or that risk models failed to adjust to changing macroeconomic conditions. Several banks blamed their losses on exchange-rate volatility and inflation, but these are hardly new risks in Nigeria’s economic environment. The fact that impairments ballooned even as profits remained high suggests that risk-management frameworks were reactive rather than preventive which focused on compliance rather than foresight. In some cases, the sheer scale of provisioning, such as Zenith’s N781 billion or Access’s N350 billion, points to systemic underestimation of credit risk.

Every naira written off as an impairment represents not just a failed loan but a lost opportunity for the real economy. N1.96 trillion could have funded tens of thousands of new small businesses, millions of jobs, and critical infrastructure projects. Instead, these funds are trapped in the closed circuit of banking losses or vanish into opaque corporate failures. This has broader implications: as banks absorb losses, they tighten lending criteria, making it harder for genuine borrowers to access loans. High impairments signal instability, discouraging foreign investors and depositors, while credit flow dries up, productivity and job creation suffer. The result is a paradoxical economy where banks post impressive profits yet the productive sector languishes.

If there is a silver lining, it is that some banks, notably UBA, Stanbic IBTC, and Wema Bank are demonstrating improved loan-recovery strategies, more disciplined credit models, and a stronger focus on risk-weighted assets. Their experiences prove that impairment is not inevitable; it is the outcome of choices like governance, culture, and accountability. For others, the current round of provisioning should serve as a wake-up call to rethink their business models, diversify exposures, and strengthen compliance culture.

To its credit, the CBN’s forbearance unwind is a critical step toward transparency. By compelling banks to recognize their true loan losses and restricting dividend payouts until they meet prudential standards, the regulator is forcing a long-overdue cleansing of the system. However, reform must go deeper than technical compliance. The CBN must enforce public disclosure of insider-related loans, tighten penalties for concealment, and promote lending to productive sectors through targeted incentives. For instance, a tiered capital framework could reward banks that extend a higher proportion of credit to SMEs and manufacturing, while imposing stricter capital charges on speculative or insider-related lending.

Nigeria’s banking sector has shown resilience through crises, from the global financial meltdown to oil-price collapses. But resilience should not become an excuse for complacency. The N1.96 trillion impairment charges of 2025 are more than a balance-sheet adjustment; they are a mirror reflecting structural flaws in lending culture, governance, and the alignment between finance and development. To rebuild trust and relevance, banks must reorient lending toward real-sector growth, invest in credit analytics and risk intelligence that anticipate shocks, enforce transparency in board-level loan approvals and insider exposures, and collaborate with regulators to design sustainable credit frameworks for SMEs. Above all, there must be a moral recalibration of banking purpose from chasing short-term profits to fueling long-term national prosperity.

The spike in impairment charges does not mean Nigeria’s banks are collapsing. Rather, it signals an industry confronting its hidden fragilities. As the forbearance curtain lifts, the system has a chance to reset to clean up bad debts, rebuild credibility, and reconnect finance with development. But that opportunity will be wasted if the same patterns persist: insider lending, governance lapses, and a preference for easy returns over real investment. Until these issues are confronted head-on, the question will continue to echo through boardrooms and regulatory halls are Nigerian banks truly financing growth or merely recycling risk and protecting privilege? Only transparency, discipline, and a renewed sense of purpose can answer that question in the affirmative.

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


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

Trending