Business
MUST READ!!! The many Implications for Nigerians Named in Panama Papers
As in the era of WikiLeaks, the world has once again been rattled by revelations about leaked information on secret accounts and other holdings of influential people around the globe.
The Panama papers are documents that were leaked by consortium of investigators across continents, after they hacked the database of shell companies that were lodged in an enforcer’s records.
In this kind of issue, it is usually predictable to find Nigeria on the list. It was, therefore, not surprising when, within days of the leakage, some serving public officers, and other retired ones, as well as oil moguls from Nigeria were named among those on the list.
Facilitator of the hidden interests and companies for Nigerians and other world leaders in British Virgin Island, as shown by the leaked database of Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm, has brought grey hairs to some Nigerian public officers and has elicited denials and staccato statements from others.
So far, those named in the documents are; the former governor of Delta State, Chief James Ononefe Ibori, who is serving term in a London prison; embattled Senate President, Senator Bukola Saraki, currently having his time in court on charges that border on alleged false asset declaration; former military General and predecessor to Saraki from Benue State, Senator David Mark; and retired Army General and oil mogul, T. Y. Danjuma. Also on the list are; the world’s richest Blackman, according to Forbes, Alhaji Aliko Dangote and his business partner, Sayyu Dantata. Their names featured as operators of shell companies.
The question has been if it is an offence to register an offshore company in a tax haven. What are the implications if a public office holder has such interest, and what the Nigerian law has to say about it. Also of interest, is how such a holding can affect a non-public office holder. Tax havens are described as places where the influential can engineer their holdings in a sub-surface manner that takes attention off them and their investments. In the process, since such holdings are usually not directly linked to them, taxes that are supposed to be paid from such earnings are usually not paid and are, instead pocketed by the operators of the company.
Directors are appointed to hold forth within short periods, which the laws of incorporation in such places, mostly remote and small islands, allow till attention shifts and then they bring in those to run the company and operate without the extant laws of their home country and, where they can, navigate the laws of their hosts to take all profits without paying full or any taxes.
Interestingly, lawyers who spoke to THISDAY on the issue were in agreement on the central issues of the leaked papers, though with different angles of explanation.
While Chief Abiodun Owonikoko, SAN, a Lagos-based Lawyer agreed with Mr. Onuoha Kalu, an Abuja-based lawyer on the fundamental that there was no law banning the operation of an offshore company in a tax haven, they however pointed out that it would become an issue if a political or public office holder was involved.
Owonikoko said that, “There is no law banning a public officer from being a shareholder in a foreign company but the officer has to declare his interest fully in it. This is because he pays tax from his salary under the Pay As You Earn PAYE while the shareholding in foreign company also brings in dividends in hard currency which has to be paid into a foreign account that the officer is forbidden from operating.
“The real issue will be when the officer fails to fully disclose such interest and what accrues from it. It affects both political office holders and private sector operators when they fail to pay their taxes correctly. To the political office holders, such offence as under-declaration of assets and tax evasion could be established while the private sector operator could be guilty of tax evasion.”
To him, Iceland’s Prime Minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, who has already resigned, because he was named in the leaked papers, may have done so out of moral burden and not necessarily for fouling any law unless there were other facts available to him to have prompted that. In Nigeria, however, resigning from ones position based on such leaks is rare.
Kalu, who sees Nigeria as a “tax haven or sorts” since the country was not strict on ensuring filing of tax returns yearly, submitted that while having shares in offshore companies in tax haven was not an issue, lack of full disclosure on interests in such havens could pose a legal problem.
“Lack of declaration of interest or lack of full disclosure fouls the law on asset declaration for political and public office holders and comes with issues of paying the correct tax. To those in the private sector, it would be a problem when tax is either evaded or avoided. It is evaded when someone who should pay tax does not do so, and avoided when mechanisms are creatively applied either to pay less than one should or not pay at all,” he explained.
How it affects those named
Ibori: Allegedly working through a Swiss asset management firm, Clamorgan S.A. in Geneva, Ibori established several offshore companies, including Stanhope Investments Limited, Julex Foundation and The Hopes Trust, enlisting himself, his wife and daughters as beneficiaries. Ibori allegedly cooked transactions and even tried to obtain loans using some of the shell companies. He was later stopped and tried, before what appeared like a failed plea bargain landed him in jail in the United Kingdom. Most of the assets linked to him have relations and children as holders of interest in the companies. He was a governor and political office holder; so if it is proved that he had interests in such offshore companies without declaring them in his asset declarations, he may still face the law since time does not run against federal offences. His could be failure to fully declare his assets, as well as tax evasion.
T.Y. Danjuma: The retired general and former Defence Minister was named in Panama papers as a user of offshore companies. The Mossac Fonseca files exposed his interest in Eastcoast Investments Inc, allegedly incorporated in Nassau, in the Bahamas. An online medium, Premium Times reported that aside Danjuma running such shell interests, he was fingered among global personalities found to maintain secret accounts, operated with codes, with the Swiss branch of banking giant, HSBC. “He was linked to HSBC account 15731CD, which was opened in 1993 and closed in 2001,” the medium said. If he was earning dividends and profits from such companies and did not pay his taxes accruing from them, he may have fouled tax laws and may be charged. Also, if such foreign accounts were being run when he was still in the Army or as minister, then it may mean trouble for the big fish.
Mark: No fewer than eight companies were reportedly linked to David Mark and they are: Sikera Overseas S.A, Colsan Enterprises Limited, Goldwin Transworld Limited, Hartland Estates Limited, Marlin Holdings Limited, Medley Holdings Limited, Quetta Properties Limited, and Centenary Holdings Limited. However, Section 6 (b) of the Code of Conduct Act provides that a public office holder shall not, “except where he is not employed on full-time basis, engage or participate in the management or running of any private business, profession or trade. If the companies linked to him were not declared in his asset declaration form, which requires that interests of your agents, nominees and trustees must be disclosed, he may be put in the dock for false asset declaration while failure to pay taxes from such companies may earn him another tax evasion or avoidance charges, depending on the results of the investigations. He has already denied complicity in running the shell companies, insisting that he had looked through the document without seeing anything linked to him and has even threatened legal action.
Saraki: He is majorly linked on issues bothering on hidden interests of his wife, Toyin, whose holdings in some companies, he failed to declare in full. There are at least four of such offshore assets listed under his wife’s name. The assets include, a property in London’s plush Belgravia neighborhood, two companies registered in the British Virgin Islands and a third in the Seychelles. The hidden property is said to be located at #8 Whuttaker Street, Belgravia, London SW1W 8JQ. It has title number NGL802235. He was, however, silent on the number of shares the former first lady had in Haussmann and Tiny Tee (Nig) Limited, among others. It will only further his charges at the Code of Conduct Tribunal where he is already contesting allegations of false asset declaration. If it is proven that he had undisclosed interests, more charges could be filed or fortified, while issues of tax payment may also be introduced.
Dangote and Dantata: Dangote is reported to be one of the most prominent clients of Mossack Fonseca, with 13 Shell Companies registered by the firm directly linked to persons and companies connected to the billionaire and his allies. Dangote and Sayyu Dantata, the founder of MRS Holdings, which bought Chevron-Texaco’s with equal shares of 12,500 each from OVLAS S.A, a Shell Company registered in Seycheles, a well-known tax haven used by businessmen and politicians and celebrities. On the same date also, a company they both own as at 2003, MRS Oil and Gas Co. Limited, bought 25,000 shares from OVLAS S.A. If the law can get at people of Dangote’s stature in Nigeria, then issues of tax evasion might be pressed against him, aside from the law looking at the manner of takeover of companies, whether they comply with extant provisions.
Recapitalisation Without Transformation is a Risk Nigeria Cannot Afford
BY BLAISE UDUNZE
In barely two weeks, Nigeria’s banking sector will once again be at a historic turning point. As the deadline for the latest recapitalisation exercise approaches on March 31, 2026, with no fewer than 31 banks having met the new capital rule, leaving out two that are reportedly awaiting verification. As exercise progresses and draws to an end, policymakers are optimistic that stronger banks will anchor financial stability and support the country’s ambition of building a $1 trillion economy.
The reform, driven by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) under Governor Olayemi Cardoso, requires banks to significantly raise their capital thresholds, which are set at N500 billion for international banks, N200 billion for national banks, and N50 billion for regional lenders. According to the apex bank, 33 banks have already tapped the capital market through rights issues and public offerings; collectively, the total verified and approved capital raised by the banks amounts to N4.05 trillion.
No doubt, at first glance, the strategy definitely appears straightforward with the idea that bigger capital means stronger banks, and stronger banks should finance economic growth. But history offers a cautionary reminder that capital alone does not guarantee resilience, as it would be recalled that Nigeria has travelled this road before.
During the 2004-2005 consolidation led by former CBN Governor Charles Soludo, the number of banks in the country shrank dramatically from 89 to 25. The reform created larger institutions that were celebrated as national champions. The truth is that Nigeria has been here before because, despite all said and done, barely five years later, the banking system plunged into crisis, forcing regulatory intervention, bailouts, and the creation of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) to absorb toxic assets.
The lesson from that experience is simple in the sense that recapitalisation without structural reform only postpones deeper problems.
Today, as banks race to meet the new capital thresholds, the real question is not how much capital has been raised but whether the reform will transform the fundamentals of Nigerian banking. The underlying fact is that if the exercise merely inflates balance sheets without addressing deeper vulnerabilities, Nigeria risks repeating a familiar cycle of apparent stability followed by systemic stress, as the resultant effect will be distressed banks less capable of bringing the economy out of the woods.
The real measure of success is far simpler. That is to say, stronger banks must stimulate economic productivity, stabilise the financial system, and expand access to credit for businesses and households. Anything less will amount to a missed opportunity.
One of the most critical issues surrounding the recapitalisation drive is the quality of the capital being raised.
Nigeria’s banking sector has reportedly secured more than N4.5 trillion in new capital commitments across different categories of banks. No doubt, on paper, these numbers may appear impressive. Going by the trends of events in Nigeria’s economy, numbers alone can be deceptive.
Past recapitalisation cycles revealed troubling practices, whereby funds raised through related-party transactions, borrowed money disguised as equity, or complex financial arrangements that recycled risks back into the banking system. If such practices resurface, recapitalisation becomes little more than an accounting exercise.
To avert a repeat of failure, the CBN must therefore ensure that every naira raised represents genuine, loss-absorbing capital. Transparency around capital sources, ownership structures, and funding arrangements must be non-negotiable. Without credible capital, balance sheet strength becomes an illusion that will make every recapitalization exercise futile.
In financial systems, credibility is itself a form of capital. If there is one recurring factor behind banking crises in Nigeria, it is corporate governance failure.
Many past collapses were not triggered by global shocks but by insider lending, weak board oversight, excessive executive power, and poor risk culture. Recapitalisation provides regulators with a rare opportunity to reset governance standards across the industry.
Boards must be independent not only in structure but also in substance. Risk committees must be empowered to challenge executive decisions. Insider lending rules must be enforced without compromise because, over the years, they have proven to be an anathema against the stability of the financial sector. The stakes are high.
When governance fails, fresh capital can quickly become fresh fuel for old excesses. Without governance reform, recapitalisation risks reinforcing the very weaknesses it seeks to eliminate.
Another structural vulnerability lies in Nigeria’s increasing amount of non-performing loans (NPLs), which recently caused the CBN to raise concerns, as Nigeria experiences a rise in bad loans threatening banking stability.
Industry data suggests that the banking sector’s NPL ratio has climbed above the prudential benchmark of 5 percent, reaching roughly 7 percent in recent assessments. Many of these troubled loans are concentrated in sectors such as oil and gas, power, and government-linked infrastructure projects, alongside other factors such as FX instability, high interest rates, and the withdrawal of Covid-era forbearance, which threaten bank stability.
While regulatory forbearance has helped maintain short-term stability, it has also obscured deeper asset-quality concerns. A credible recapitalisation process must confront this reality directly.
Loan classification standards must reflect economic truth rather than regulatory convenience. Banks should not carry impaired assets indefinitely while presenting healthy balance sheets to investors and depositors.
Transparency about asset quality strengthens trust. Concealment destroys it. Few forces have disrupted Nigerian bank balance sheets in recent years as severely as exchange-rate volatility.
Many banks still operate with significant foreign exchange mismatches, borrowing short-term in foreign currencies while lending long-term to clients earning revenues in naira. When the naira depreciates sharply, these mismatches can erode capital faster than any credit loss.
Recapitalisation must therefore be accompanied by stricter supervision of foreign exchange exposure, as this part calls for the regulator to heighten its supervision. Banks should be required to disclose currency risks more transparently and undergo rigorous stress testing at intervals that assume adverse currency scenarios rather than best-case outcomes. In a structurally import-dependent economy, ignoring FX risk is no longer an option.
Nigeria’s banking system has long been characterised by excessive concentration in a few sectors and corporate clients, which calls for adequate monitoring and the need to be addressed quickly for the recapitalization drive to yield maximum results.
Growth in most advanced economies comes from the small and medium-sized enterprises that are well-funded. Anything short of this undermines it, since the concentration of huge loans to large oil and gas companies, government-related entities, and major conglomerates absorbs a disproportionate share of bank lending. This has continued to pose a major threat to the system, as the case is with small and medium-sized enterprises, the backbone of job creation, which remain chronically underfinanced. This imbalance weakens the economy.
Recapitalisation should therefore be tied to policies that encourage credit diversification and risk-sharing mechanisms that allow banks to lend more confidently to productive sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, and technology rather than investing their funds into the government’s securities. Bigger banks that remain narrowly exposed do not strengthen the economy. They amplify its fragilities.
Nigeria’s macroeconomic conditions, which are its broad economic settings, are defined by frequent and sometimes sharp changes or instability rather than stability.
Inflation shocks, interest-rate swings, fiscal pressures, and currency adjustments are not rare disruptions; but they have now become a normal part of the economic environment. Despite all these adverse factors, many banks still operate risk models that assume relative stability. Perhaps unbeknownst to the stakeholders, this disconnect is dangerous.
Owing to possible shocks, and when banks increase their capital (recapitalization), it is required that banks adopt more sophisticated risk-management frameworks capable of withstanding severe economic scenarios, with the expectation that stronger banks should also have stronger systems to manage risks and survive economic crises. In Nigeria today, every financial institution’s stress testing must be performed in the face of the economy facing severe shocks like currency depreciation, sovereign debt pressures, and sudden interest-rate spikes.
Risk management should evolve from a compliance obligation into a strategic discipline embedded in every lending decision.
Public confidence in the banking system depends heavily on credible financial reporting.
Investors, analysts, and depositors need to be able to understand banks’ true financial positions without navigating non-transparent disclosures or creative accounting practices, which means the industry must be liberated to an extent that gives room for access to information.
Recapitalisation provides an opportunity to strengthen the enforcement of international financial reporting standards, enhance audit quality, and require clearer disclosure of capital adequacy, asset quality, and related-party transactions. Transparency should not be feared. It is the foundation of trust.
One thing that must be corrected is that while recapitalisation often focuses on financial metrics, the banking sector ultimately runs on human capital.
Another fearful aspect of this exercise for the economy is that consolidation and mergers triggered by the reform could lead to workforce disruptions if not carefully managed. Job losses, casualisation, and declining staff morale can weaken institutional culture and productivity. Strong banks are built by strong people.
If recapitalisation strengthens balance sheets while destabilising the workforce that powers the system, the reform risks undermining its own economic objectives. Human capital stability must therefore form part of the broader reform strategy.
Doubtless, another emerging shift in Nigeria’s financial landscape is the rise of digital financial platforms that are increasingly changing how people access and use money in Nigeria.
Millions of Nigerians are increasingly relying on fintech platforms for payments, microloans, and everyday financial transactions. One of the advantages it offers, is that these services often deliver faster and more user-friendly experiences than traditional banks. While innovation is welcome, it raises important questions about the future structure of financial intermediation.
The point here is that the moment traditional banks retreat from retail banking while fintech platforms dominate customer interactions, systemic liquidity and regulatory oversight could become fragmented.
The CBN must see to it that the recapitalised banks must therefore invest aggressively in digital infrastructure, cybersecurity, and customer experience, while cutting down costs on all less critical areas in the industry.
Nigerians should feel the benefits of recapitalisation not only in stronger balance sheets but also in faster apps, reliable payment systems, and responsive customer service.
As banks grow larger through recapitalisation and consolidation, a new challenge emerges via systemic concentration.
Nigeria’s largest banks already control a significant share of industry assets. Further consolidation could deepen the divide between dominant institutions and smaller players. This creates the risk of “too-big-to-fail” banks whose collapse could threaten the entire financial system.
To address this risk, regulators must strengthen resolution frameworks that allow distressed banks to fail without triggering systemic panic, their collapse does not damage the whole financial system, and do not require taxpayer-funded bailouts to forestall similar mistakes that occurred with the liquidation of Heritage Bank. Market discipline depends on credible failure mechanisms.
It must be understood that Nigeria’s banking recapitalisation is not merely a financial exercise or, better still, increasing banks’ capital. It is a rare opportunity to rebuild trust, strengthen governance, and reposition the financial system as a true engine of economic development.
One fact is that if the reform focuses only on capital numbers, the country risks repeating a familiar pattern of churning out impressive balance sheets followed by another cycle of crisis.
But the actors in this exercise must ensure that the recapitalisation addresses governance failures, asset quality concerns, risk management weaknesses, and transparency gaps; and the moment this is done, the banking sector could emerge stronger and more resilient.
Nigeria does not simply need bigger banks. It needs better banks, institutions capable of financing innovation, supporting entrepreneurs, and building economic opportunity for millions of citizens.
The true capital of any banking system is not just money. It is trust. And whether this recapitalisation ultimately succeeds will depend on whether Nigerians see that trust reflected not only in financial statements but in the everyday experience of saving, borrowing, and investing in the economy. Only then will bigger banks translate into a stronger nation.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]
FirstBank Makes Home Ownership Possible for Nigerians with Single-Digit Interest Rate Loan
For millions of Nigerians, homeownership has long felt like an ambition deferred. Squeezed by rising property prices, persistent double-digit inflation and high commercial lending rates, the dream of owning a home has remained just that – a dream.
But that narrative is quietly changing. Thanks to FirstBank.
The N1 Trillion Intervention Reshaping Access
In partnership with the Ministry of Finance Incorporated Real Estate Investment Fund (MREIF), FirstBank has unveiled a mortgage opportunity that could redefine access to housing finance in Nigeria.
Backed by the Federal Government’s N1trillion mortgage fund, the initiative is designed to empower Nigerians with affordable, long-term credit to own their homes.
9.75% Interest Rate in a 30% Lending Environment
MREIF is priced at 9.75% per annum, dramatically lower than prevailing commercial loan rates. Eligible Nigerians can access up to N100 million and repay within 20 years. This translates into significantly more manageable monthly repayments and greater long-term financial stability.
Built for Salary Earners, Entrepreneurs and the Diaspora
The MREIF mortgage facility has been structured to be inclusive. It is available to salary account holders, business owners and diaspora customers. Whether you are a young professional aiming to exit the rent cycle, an entrepreneur building generational stability, or you’re a Nigerian abroad looking to secure assets locally, the product opens a pathway that has historically been out of reach for many.
Taking the First Step
For those who have been waiting for the right time, this is definitely it. The question is no longer whether homeownership is possible. The real question is: will you act before the window narrows?
Visit https://www.firstbanknigeria.com/personal/loans/mreif-home-loan/ and in no time you could be the latest homeowner in town.
Alpha Morgan Bank Deepens Presence in Abuja with New Branch in Utako
Marking another milestone in its expansion drive, Alpha Morgan Bank has opened a new branch in Utako, Abuja, reinforcing its strategy of building closer institutional ties within key business communities and bringing its financial expertise closer to individuals, and enterprises driving the city’s growth.
The new branch, located at Plot 1121 Obafemi Awolowo Way, Utako, Abuja is strategically positioned to serve individuals, entrepreneurs, and corporate clients within Utako and surrounding districts.
The expansion follows the Bank’s recently concluded Economic Review Webinar held in February 2026, as the bank continues to position as a thought-leader in the financial services industry.
Speaking on the opening, Ade Buraimo, Managing Director of Alpha Morgan Bank, said the move underscores the Bank’s commitment to accessibility and service excellence.
“Proximity matters in banking. As communities grow and commercial activity expands, financial institutions also evolve to meet customers where they are. The Utako Branch allows us to deliver our services to people in that community efficiently while maintaining the high standards our customers expect,”
The Utako location will provide a full suite of retail and corporate banking services, including account opening, deposits, transfers, business banking solutions, and financial advisory support.
Customers and members of the public are invited to visit the new Utako Branch to experience the Bank’s approach to satisfying banking.
-
society6 months agoReligion: Africa’s Oldest Weapon of Enslavement and the Forgotten Truth
-
news3 months agoWHO REALLY OWNS MONIEPOINT? The $290 Million Deal That Sold Nigeria’s Top Fintech to Foreign Interests
-
society6 months ago“You Are Never Without Help” – Pastor Gebhardt Berndt Inspires Hope Through Empower Church (Video)
-
Business7 months agoGTCO increases GTBank’s Paid-Up Capital to ₦504 Billion
You must be logged in to post a comment Login