Connect with us

Analysis

The 8 rescued banks run similar risk

Published

on

By Omoh Gabriel

Recent development in the Nigerian Banking industry has become a sour grape.
Whichever way you look at it, it presents an unclear picture of the direction of the sector. As at today, many are still at a loss as to who did what– Was it the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, that actually revoked the licences of BankPHB, Afribank and Spring Bank? If so why did it say that it supported the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Bridge Bank option?

This is not the first time a bank is failing in Nigeria. In the past when a licence is revoked, the bank is handed over to NDIC for liquidation. Why the bridge bank option? The CBN injected funds into these banks sometimes ago. Does it mean that injection was wasted?
When AMCON came on board it bought the non performing assets of the three banks, what about those assets?
Does it mean that the five banks that signed Transaction Agreement are free from being taken over? Far from it.
Their implementation could run into difficulties with shareholders. So the eight rescued banks are at the same level of risk.

Indications are that following the lack lustre performance of the CBN in the resolution of the banking crisis and the continued wrong signal to foreign investors on the state of the financial market in the country, the Federal Government made a quick and unexpected move last Friday to revoke the banking licences of the three banks by NDIC taking them over.

The CBN had in August 2009 injected the sum of N620 billion into the eight banks it had bailed out and the three banks were among. It was expected that the bail out will see the banks out of crisis. Mid-way into the injection of funds into these banks there were reports of reckless spending by the CBN appointed managers of three of them.
Despite repeated reports, the CBN failed to checkmate their excesses resulting in the injection of another N679 billion of public funds into the three bringing the total fund injected into the rescued banks to a whooping N 1.299 trillion.

Friday intervention on the other hand may signal that the federal government may have been pissed off with the management of the CBN for failing to provide the banks with the needed leadership.
The decision to intervene in the three bank was said to have been arrived at after an inter ministerial meeting between officials of the Federal Ministry of Finance, the office of the Attorney General of the federation, AMCON and NDIC which concluded that the federal government has to intervene through the take over of the banks. Those who were close to the meeting said that the CBN was only informed of the decision.

A strong evidence for this assertion is the fact that the licences of the three banks were revoked and immediately new ones were announced to take their place. In the ordinary run of banking regulations, the CBN licences and revokes banks licences while it usually calls in the NDIC, known in financial circles as an under taker. The role of the NDIC is to liquidate. The big question that has not been answered is why were the licences revoked and Bridge Banks set up to manage the three banks for upward of three years? Why were they not liquidated out rightly by the NDIC and on whose instruction?

The CBN appointed management had a two year mandate that would have expired this month. Besides the CBN ultimatum to this banks to recapitalise is just some weeks ahead. Waiting till the deadline would have caused a stamped in the three banks. The inability of the CBN to resolve the crisis has put at risk the deposit of N 3.06 trillion in the eight banks which is a source of worry to the CBN management and the federal government that should the eight bank go under, the economy will not be able to absolved the losses and the NDIC is not in any position to pay depositors.
This has put at risk the deposit of N 3.06 trillion in the eight banks which is a source of worry to the CBN management and the federal government that should the eight banks go under, the economy will not be able to absolve the losses and the NDIC is not in any position to pay depositors.

The Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation has provision for protecting small depositors and can only pay a maximum of N 250,000 per depositor.
Central Bank figures show that in 2009 when the current CBN governor assumed office, the total deposit base of the 24 banks in the country was N 10 trillion while the deposit in the eight rescued banks stood at N 3.069 trillion which is 30.7 per cent of the total deposit.

As at December 2010, the total deposit base of the Nigeria banks was N 10.837 trillion and the eight rescued banks had a total of N 3.058 trillion which are at risk.
A break down of the deposit the eight banks are saddled with showed that as at December 2010, Intercontinental despite the travail had a total deposit base of N 617.733 billion as against the N 511.576 billion it had in 2009 an increase of N 106.15 billion. Closing following in the deposit at risk is Oceanic Bank which total deposit at the end of 2010 amounted to N 630.227 billion. Compared to the previous year deposit of N 542.787 billion, this amounted to a deposit increase of N 87.43 billion.

According to the CBN figures, in the case of Union Bank, its total deposit base as at the end of last year was N 616.076 billion as against the previous year deposit base of N 797.913 billion. This in fact showed a decrease in deposit liability of N 181.83 billion.
According to CBN data, closely following in the deposit at risk, is BankPHB which at the end of 2010 had a deposit liability of N 348.707 billion as against the N 447.540 billion it had in 2009 when CBN governor, Mallam Lamido Sanusi’s management took over the bank. This showed a loss of deposit of N 98.83 billion. Afribank had N 304.320 billion, Finbank N 209.118 billion, and Equatorial Trust Bank N 133.948 billion deposit.

The twist in the unfolding financial drama is that it is BankPHB, Spring bank and Afribank that were unable to secure core investors, although they were in talks with some Nigeria banks.
Usually when the CBN revokes a bank licence it calls in the NDIC to liquidate the bank. But in this instance, the government through AMCON announced that it had set up three new banks namely Mainstream Bank, Enterprise Bank and Keystone Bank to take over the assets and liabilities of the defunct banks.
Almost immediately the Board and management of the banks were named.

From the names announced apart from very few in the board and those to act as chairmen, all the others are old time bankers who left the system years back. This was exactly what happened two years ago when the CBN appointed the management of the rescued banks.

Bankers are aware that any person who left the banking scene for upward of two years cannot be employed by a bank because he will be out of tune with the developments and trends in the industry. Funny enough this time around some of those who were removed from the rescued banks have been reappointed prompting the question what has changed?
The shutting down of the three banks, AMCON explained, became necessary because they had not made much progress in their recapitalisation exercises and obviously could not meet the September 30th deadline. Apart from not having credible core investors to conclude the recapitalisation, time was also not on the side of the trio to get both regulatory and shareholders’ approval, which would take at least two months from date of signing an agreement with an investor.

The five that have signed the transaction agreement with core investor are not sure that their capitalisation will sail through because they need a court-sanctioned extra ordinary general meeting for shareholders to endorse and approve the deal which requires not less than three weeks published notices.

The government it would appear was not happy that two years into the crisis the rescued banks were still making losses on a monthly basis and were losing large volumes of deposits on daily basis as customers were taking a flight to safety due to the panic induced by the CBN that has led to loss of confidence in the affected banks.
Perhaps if the Federal Government had not taken over the banks, the losses that would have been made by these banks would have been enormous, meaning that AMCON would have injected much more funds than it did.

With the transfer of the assets of the old banks to the newly formed ones, which have been fully recapitalised by AMCOM with N769billion, depositors have guaranteed the safety of their funds and the recapitalisation processes has been fast tracked for the three banks so it seems.

However existing shareholders, who have been slow at sorting out their recapitalisation process, have lost interest completely as the old banks no longer exist so it seems.
A lot of the slow down have been due to various shareholders litigations and court processes. No shareholder can lay claim to the new banks and AMCON is now the new 100 per cent owners. But AMCON bought the assets of the old banks. The deposits the new banks are to protect were the deposit of the defunct banks. It remains to be seen how the government through AMCON will treat former shareholders.

It happened before with the Nigeria Always when the federal government floated Air Nigeria thinking that creditors of Nigeria Airways will be looking the other way when Air Nigeria flies around. The rest is now history.
In arriving at the decision to set up three new entities in place of the old banks, did the government consider the cost implication of identity change to the new banks? Did they consider the fact that a costly re-branding will be need for the banks to function in all the branches of the old banks? Did they consider the fact that AMCON purchased the non performing assets of the three old banks?

Continue Reading

Analysis

As EU plans Russian Gas exit, Ministers to convene in Paris to chart Africa’s export potential

Published

on

In the wake of seismic shifts in the European energy landscape, the Invest in African Energy (IAE) 2026 Forum in Paris will host a Ministerial Dialogue on “Unlocking Africa’s Gas Supply for Global Energy Security.” This strategic session will examine how Africa can turn its untapped gas reserves into a reliable and sustainable source of supply. With Europe seeking to diversify away from Russian gas, the dialogue highlights both the continent’s growing role in global energy markets and the opportunity for African producers to attract long-term investment. Recent developments underscore the urgency of Africa’s role in global energy security. Last month, EU countries agreed to phase out their remaining Russian gas imports, with existing contracts benefiting from a transition period: short-term contracts can continue until June 2026, while long-term contracts will run until January 2028. In parallel, the European Commission is pushing to end Russian LNG imports by January 2027 under a broader sanctions package aimed at limiting Moscow’s energy revenues.

Africa’s role in this rebalancing is already gaining momentum. Algeria recently renewed its gas supply agreement with ČEZ Group, ensuring continued deliveries to the Czech Republic. In Libya, the National Oil Corporation (NOC) has approved new compressors at the Bahr Essalam field to boost output and reinforce flows via the Greenstream pipeline to Italy. These developments complement the Structures A&E offshore project – led by Eni and the NOC – which is expected to bring two platforms online by 2026 and produce up to 750 million cubic feet per day, supporting both domestic and European demand. West Africa is pursuing ambitious export routes as well.

Nigeria, Algeria and Niger have revived the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline (TSGP), with engineering firm Penspen commissioned earlier this year to revalidate its feasibility. The proposed $25 billion Nigeria–Morocco pipeline is also advancing as a long-term corridor linking West African gas to European markets. Meanwhile, the Greater Tortue Ahmeyim (GTA) project off Mauritania and Senegal came online earlier this year, with its first phase targeting 2.3 million tons of LNG annually. In June, the project delivered its third cargo to Belgium’s Zeebrugge terminal, marking the first African LNG shipment from GTA to Europe. Together, these milestones underscore a strategic convergence: African producers are accelerating efforts to scale up exports just as Europe intensifies its search for reliable alternatives to Russian gas.

Yet, as the ministerial session will explore, unlocking Africa’s gas supply demands sustained investment, regulatory alignment, environmental management and community engagement. For Europe, diversification of supply is a strategic necessity; for African producers, it is an opportunity to accelerate development, build infrastructure and secure long-term capital. At IAE 2026, these shifts will be examined by the officials and stakeholders driving them. The Ministerial Dialogue brings African energy leaders together with European policymakers, industry players and investors in a setting that supports practical, solution-focused discussion on supply, export strategies and future cooperation. As Europe adapts its gas strategy and African producers progress major projects, the Forum provides a direct platform for ministers to outline priorities and for investors to engage with key decision-makers.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Authorities must respond as digital tools used by organized criminals accelerate financial crime—IMF

Published

on

International Monetary Fund IMF, has said that criminals are outpacing enforcement by adapting ever faster ways to carry out digital fraud. The INF in a Blog post said the Department of Justice in June announced the largest-ever US crypto seizure: $225 million from crypto scams known as pig butchering, in which organized criminals, often across borders, use advanced technology and social engineering such as romance or investment schemes to manipulate victims. This typically involves using AI-generated profiles, encrypted messaging, and obscured blockchain transactions to hide and move stolen funds. It was a big win. Federal agents collaborated across jurisdictions and used blockchain analysis and machine learning to track thousands of wallets used to scam more than 400 victims. Yet it was also a rare victory that underscored how authorities often must play catch-up in a fast-changing digital world. And the scammers are still out there. They pick the best tools for their schemes, from laundering money through crypto and AI-enabled impersonation to producing deepfake content, encrypted apps, and decentralized exchanges. Authorities confronting anonymous, borderless threats are held back by jurisdiction, process, and legacy systems.
Annual illicit crypto activity growth has averaged about 25 percent in recent years and may have surpassed $51 billion last year, according to Chainalysis, a New York–based blockchain analysis firm specializing in helping criminal investigators trace transactions. Bad actors still depend on cash and traditional finance, and money laundering specifically relies on banks, informal money changers, and cash couriers. But the old ways are being reinforced or supercharged by technologies to thwart detection and disruption.
Encrypted messaging apps help cartels coordinate cross-border transactions. Stablecoins and lightly regulated virtual asset platforms can hide bribes and embezzled funds. Cybercriminals use AI-generated identities and bots to deceive banks and evade outdated controls. Tracking proceeds generated by organized crime is nearly impossible for underresourced agencies. AI lowers barriers to entry. Fraudsters with voice-cloning and fake-document generators bypass the verification protocols many banks and regulators still use. Their innovation is growing as compliance systems lag. Governments recognize the threats, but responses are fragmented and uneven—including in regulation of crypto exchanges. And there are delays implementing the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF’s) “travel rule” to better identify those sending and receiving money across borders, which most digital proceeds cross.
Meanwhile, international financial flows are increasingly complicated by instant transfers on decentralized platforms and anonymity-enhancing tools. Most payments still go through multiple intermediaries, often layering cross-border transactions through antiquated correspondent banks that obscure and delay transactions while raising costs. This helps criminals exploit oversight gaps, jurisdictional coordination, and technological capacity to operate across borders, often undetected.
Regulators and fintechs should be partners, and sustained multilateral engagement should foster fast, cheap, transparent, and traceable cross-border payments. There’s a parallel narrative. Criminals exploit innovation for secrecy and speed while companies and governments test coordination to reduce vulnerabilities and modernize cross-border infrastructure. At the same time, technological implications remain underexplored with respect to anti–money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, or AML/CFT. Singapore’s and Thailand’s linked fast payment systems, for example, enable real-time retail transfers using mobile numbers; Indonesia and Malaysia have connected QR codes for cross-border payments. Such innovations offer efficiency and inclusion yet raise new issues regarding identity verification, transaction monitoring, and regulatory coordination.
In India, the Unified payments interface enables seamless transfers across apps and platforms, highlighting the power of interoperable design. More than 18 billion monthly transactions, many across competing platforms, show how openness and standardization drive scale and inclusion. Digital payments in India grew faster when interoperability improved, especially in fragmented markets where switching was costly, IMF research shows These regional innovations and global initiatives reflect a growing understanding that fighting crime and fostering inclusion are interlinked priorities—especially as criminals speed ahead. The FATF echoed this concern, urging countries to design AML/CFT controls that support inclusion and innovation. Moreover, an FATF June recommendation marks a major advance: Requiring originator and beneficiary information for cross-border wire transfers—including those involving virtual assets—will enhance traceability across the fast-evolving digital financial ecosystem.
Efforts like these are important examples of how technology enables criminal advantage, but technology must also be part of the regulatory response.
Modernizing cross-border payment systems and reducing unintended AML/CFT barriers increasingly means focusing on transparency, interoperability, and risk-based regulation. The IMF’s work on “safe payment corridors” supports this by helping countries build trusted, secure channels for legitimate financial flows without undermining new technology. A pilot with Samoa —where de-risking has disrupted remittances—showed how targeted safeguards and collaboration with regulated providers can preserve access while maintaining financial integrity without disrupting the use of new payment platforms.
Several countries, with IMF guidance, are investing in machine learning to detect anomalies in cross-border financial flows, and others are tightening regulation of virtual asset service providers. Governments are investing in their own capacity to trace crypto transfers, and blockchain analytics firms are often employed to do that. IMF analysis of cross-border flows and the updated FATF rules are mutually reinforcing. If implemented cohesively, they can help digital efficiency coexist with financial integrity. For that to happen, legal frameworks must adapt to enable timely access to digital evidence while preserving due process. Supervisory models need to evolve to oversee both banks and nonbank financial institutions offering cross-border services. Regulators and fintechs should be partners, and sustained multilateral engagement should foster fast, cheap, transparent, and traceable cross-border payments—anchored interoperable standards that also respect privacy.
Governments must keep up. That means investing in regulatory technology, such as AI-powered transaction monitoring and blockchain analysis, and giving agencies tools and expertise to detect complex crypto schemes and synthetic identity fraud. Institutions must keep pace with criminals by hiring and retaining expert data scientists and financial crime specialists. Virtual assets must be brought under AML/CFT regulation, public-private partnerships should codevelop tools to spot emerging risks, and global standards from the FATF and the Financial Stability Board must be backed by national investments in effective AML/CFT frameworks.
Consistent and coordinated implementation is important. Fragmented efforts leave openings for criminals. Their growing technological advantage over governments threatens to undermine financial integrity, destabilize economies, weaken already fragile institutions, and erode public trust in systems meant to ensure safety and fairness. As crime rings adopt and adapt emerging technologies to outpace enforcement, the cost is not only fiscal—it is structural and systemic. Governments can’t wait. The criminals won’t.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Multilateral development banks reaffirm commitment to climate finance, pledge innovative funding for adaptation

Published

on

Multilateral development banks have reaffirmed their commitment to climate finance, pledging to scale up innovative funding to boost climate adaptation and resilience. “Financing climate resilience is not a cost, but an investment.” This was the key message from senior MDB officials at the end of a side event organised by the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) on the opening day of the 30th United Nations Climate Conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil.

The conference runs from 10 to 21 November. During a panel discussion titled “Accelerating large-scale climate change adaptation,” MDB representatives, including the African Development Bank Group, outlined how their institutions are fulfilling Paris Agreement commitments by mobilising substantial and innovative resources for climate adaptation and mitigation. Ilan Goldfajn, President of the Inter-American Development Bank Group, emphasised that “resilience is more than a concern for the future: it is also essential for development today.” He announced that MDBs are tripling their financing for resilience over the next decade, targeting $42 billion by 2030.

“At the Inter-American Development Bank, we are turning preparedness into protection and resilience into opportunity,” Goldfajn added. Tanja Faller, Director of Technical Evaluation and Monitoring at the Council of Europe Development Bank, stressed that climate change “not only creates new threats, but also amplifies existing inequalities. The most socially vulnerable people are the hardest hit and the last to recover. This is how a climate crisis also becomes a social crisis.” Representatives from the Islamic Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank Group, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,  the European Investment Bank, the New Development Bank and IDB Invest (the private sector arm of the Inter-American Development Bank Group) also shared concrete examples of successful adaptation investments and strategies for mobilising new resources.

Kevin Kariuki, Vice President of the African Development Bank Group in charge of Power, Energy, Climate and Green Growth, presented the Bank’s leadership in advancing climate adaptation and mitigation. “At the African Development Bank, we understand the priorities of our countries: adaptation and mitigation are at the heart of our climate interventions.” He highlighted the creation of the Climate Action Window, a new financing mechanism under the African Development Fund, the Bank Group’s concessional window for low-income countries.

“The African Development Bank is the only multilateral development bank with a portfolio of adaptation projects ready for investment through the Climate Action Window,” Kariuki noted, adding that Germany, the United Kingdom and Switzerland are among key co-financing partners. Kariuki also showcased the Bank’s YouthADAPT programme, which has invested $5.4 million in 41 youth-led enterprises across 20 African countries, generating more than 10,000 jobs — 61 percent of which are led by women, and mobilising an additional $7 million in private and donor funding.

Representatives from Zambia, Mozambique and Jamaica also shared local perspectives on the financing needs of communities most exposed to climate risk. The panel followed the official opening of COP30, marked by a passionate appeal from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for greater climate investment to prevent a “tragedy for humanity.”

“Without the Paris Agreement, we would see a 4–5°C increase in global temperatures,” Lula warned. “Our call to action is based on three pillars: honouring commitments; accelerating public action with a roadmap enabling humanity to move away from fossil fuels and deforestation; and placing humanity at the heart of the climate action programme: thousands of people are living in poverty and deprivation as a result of climate change. The climate emergency is a crisis of inequality,” he continued.

“We must build a future that is not doomed to tragedy. We must ensure that we live in a world where we can still dream.” Outgoing COP President Mukhtar Babayevn, Azerbaijan’s Minister of Ecology, urged developed nations to fulfil their promises made at the Baku Conference, including commitments to mobilise $300 billion in climate finance. He called for stronger political will and multilateral cooperation, before handing over the COP presidency to Brazilian diplomat André Corrêa do Lago, who now leads the negotiations.

Continue Reading

Trending