FirstBank Introduces Exclusive 500-Seater Bleacher at Carnival Calabar & Festival 2025

Lagos, 26 December 2025 – FirstBank, West Africa’s premier financial institution and financial inclusion services provider, has officially announced its sponsorship of the Carnival Calabar & Festival 2025, unveiling a landmark addition set to redefine the carnival experience — the first-ever private premium seating area at the event.

The highlight of FirstBank’s participation is the construction of a 500-seater premium bleacher, designed to provide comfort, safety, and an elevated viewing experience for carnival enthusiasts.

Speaking on the sponsorship, the Acting Group Head Marketing and Corporate Communications, FirstBank, Olayinka Ijabiyi, noted that the carnival aligns with the Bank’s First@Arts initiative, a platform dedicated to supporting the creative arts value chain across Nigeria. He said, “We recognise the transformative power of the arts, including carnivals, in inspiring people and strengthening national unity. For more than 131 years, we have supported platforms that promote self-expression, social reflection and cultural exchange. Our investment in the Carnival Calabar & Festival demonstrates our commitment to preserving the nation’s rich cultural heritage through First@Arts.”

“As part of our sponsorship this year, we are introducing the first-ever private 500-seater premium bleacher to further elevate the carnival experience. This exclusive seating is designed to provide exceptional comfort and an unforgettable viewing experience for attendees,” Ijabiyi added.

The Chairman of the Cross River State Carnival Calabar Commission, Gabe Onah, also commented on FirstBank’s sponsorship. “FirstBank’s involvement is a strong demonstration of private-sector support for culture and tourism. This partnership not only enhances the overall quality of the carnival but also strengthens its global appeal,” he said.

The Carnival Calabar & Festival 2025 is officially marketed by Okhma Global Limited, the appointed Official Marketer responsible for brand partnerships, promotional engagements, and ticket sales. Okhma Global Limited has partnered with the Cross River State government in delivering Carnival Calabar & Festival for over ten years, playing a key role in strengthening the carnival’s commercial growth and global visibility.

How Not to Defame a Saint: Gbenga Komolafe’s Unblemished Record in the Nigerian Oil Sector*

By Benedict Aguele 

In the age of instant narratives and social media-driven outrage, few things are as dangerous as unverified allegations leveled against competent public servants. Engr. Gbenga Komolafe, former Chief Executive of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), has recently been subjected to a torrent of claims alleging corruption, asset manipulation, and revenue concealment. Yet, a careful examination of the facts reveals that these allegations are not only unfounded but also reflect a troubling pattern of targeting individuals who are effective reformers in Nigeria’s critical oil and gas sector.

Komolafe’s tenure at the NUPRC coincided with a transformative period in the Nigerian petroleum industry. The Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), signed into law in 2021, established a robust legal framework for regulating upstream operations, enhancing transparency, and modernizing revenue management. As CEO, Komolafe applied his extensive knowledge of petroleum law and regulatory best practices to ensure that the agency fulfilled its statutory mandate. His focus on compliance, due process, and legal integrity naturally ruffled the feathers of individuals accustomed to the old ways of doing business, and it is within this context that the recent allegations must be understood.

One of the most striking aspects of the claims against Komolafe is their audacious scope. Petitioners have accused him of controlling dozens of bank accounts, concealing billions in oil and gas revenues, and orchestrating the unlawful reduction of multiple oil mining leases. Verified records, however, demonstrate that Komolafe maintains only two bank accounts. There is no evidence to suggest that these accounts were used for illicit purposes. Such inaccuracies underscore a fundamental flaw in the allegations: they are based on conjecture and selective interpretation rather than documented proof.

It is also important to consider the behavior of the petitioner, who initially approached the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS) to request an investigation. Once scrutiny began, he went underground, apparently seeking a settlement that never materialized. This pattern strongly suggests that the allegations were motivated more by personal gain or retaliation than by genuine concern for regulatory compliance. Komolafe, on his part, did not kowtow to these pressures, choosing instead to operate transparently and within the bounds of the law.

Throughout his tenure, Komolafe emphasized regulatory integrity, transparency, and accountability. Any suggestion that he could single-handedly manipulate Nigeria’s upstream assets without detection ignores the complex checks and balances embedded in the PIA framework. These include multi-agency oversight, audits by the Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI), monitoring by the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, and scrutiny by international partners. Claims that billions were “concealed” or that strategic oil and gas assets were mismanaged do not withstand scrutiny when the systemic regulatory and institutional safeguards are considered.

*Facts Over Fiction: Debunking Misleading Claims*

Another central allegation pertains to Oil Prospecting Licence (OPL) 227 and its supposed conversion to OML 146, allegedly reducing the acreage drastically. Here again, the claims misrepresent both the law and the operational reality. Regulatory approval processes under the PIA require thorough documentation, technical verification, and alignment with existing lease agreements. Any lawful conversion or adjustment is subject to board approval, ministerial ratification, and public disclosure. Komolafe’s involvement in overseeing these processes was purely administrative and statutory, consistent with his legal obligations as the NUPRC chief executive. There is no evidence of personal enrichment or unlawful action.

Similar accusations were made regarding OMLs 33, 46, and 74, purportedly reduced without proper justification. However, independent assessments reveal that all regulatory decisions during Komolafe’s tenure were conducted under the established legal framework. Assertions that portions of these leases were misappropriated or that revenues were diverted are not supported by verifiable documents or audits. They reflect a narrative constructed for maximum sensational impact rather than a factual account.

Equally misleading are claims about the operation of Sterling Exploration and Energy Production Company (SEEPCO) and alleged underreporting of wells. While SEEPCO’s operations are indeed licensed, any discrepancies in reporting fall under the remit of multiple regulatory bodies, and there is no evidence that Komolafe personally facilitated any illicit operations. The insinuation that he orchestrated financial opacity or laundered proceeds through multiple bank accounts is categorically false and inconsistent with both public records and his documented professional conduct.

*Preserving Integrity and Justice*

Komolafe’s career exemplifies the highest standards of public service. His commitment to legal compliance, transparency, and institutional reform was evident in every decision taken at the NUPRC. Allegations rooted in hearsay, unverified documents, or personal vendettas not only threaten his reputation but also undermine broader governance reforms. When reformers are targeted without due process, it signals to the nation’s bureaucracy and private sector that compliance, professionalism, and integrity may be punished rather than rewarded.

It is also essential to consider the principle of proportionality in accountability. Public servants must be evaluated on the basis of evidence, not conjecture or political expediency. Komolafe’s resignation from office should be viewed within the normal course of administrative transition, not as an admission of guilt. He acted within his statutory powers, and there is no credible evidence linking him to corruption or fraudulent manipulation of assets.

Civil society organizations, media professionals, and regulatory stakeholders must recognize the dangers of perpetuating unverified claims. While oversight and accountability are non-negotiable in a democratic system, the deployment of inflammatory allegations without substantiation amounts to character assassination. Nigeria’s petroleum sector, already complex and strategically critical, cannot afford the destabilizing effects of misinformation and false narratives.

In this context, Komolafe’s example is instructive. He navigated an era of major reform, applying his expertise to safeguard national interests while maintaining professional integrity. His conduct demonstrates that effective regulatory leadership is possible without succumbing to personal enrichment, nepotism, or corruption.

The path forward for Nigeria’s extractive industry lies in institutional strengthening, transparency, and evidence-based oversight. Petitions and claims should be rigorously investigated, but the presumption of innocence must be maintained. Komolafe’s record should remind policymakers, journalists, and civic actors alike that constructive reformers are assets to the nation, not targets for defamatory campaigns.

In conclusion, Engr. Gbenga Komolafe’s tenure as NUPRC chief executive reflects dedication, legality, and reformist zeal. To defame a public servant without evidence is not only unfair to the individual but detrimental to national development.

Aguele is a member, governing council Maritime University Oron.

After the Capital Rush: Who Really Wins Nigeria’s Bank Recapitalisation?

BY BLAISE UDUNZE

By any standard, Nigeria’s ongoing bank recapitalisation exercise is one of the most consequential financial sector reforms since the 2004-2005 consolidation that shrank the number of banks from 89 to 25. Then, as now, the stated objective was stability to have stronger balance sheets, better shock absorption, and banks capable of financing long-term economic growth. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), in 2024, mandated a sweeping recapitalisation exercise compelling banks to raise substantially higher capital bases depending on their license categories. The categorisation mandated that every Tier-1 deposit money bank with international authorization is to warehouse N500 billion minimum capital base, and a national bank must have N200 billion, while a regional bank must have N50 billion by the deadline of 31st March 2026. According to the apex bank, the objectives were to strengthen resilience, create a more robust buffer against shocks, and position Nigerian banks as global competitors capable of funding a $1 trillion economy.

But in the thick of the race to comply and as the dust gradually settles, a far bigger conversation has emerged, one that cuts to the heart of how our banking system works. What will the aftermath of recapitalisation mean for Nigeria’s banking landscape, financial inclusion agenda, and real-sector development? Beyond the headlines of rights issues, private placements, and billionaire founders boosting stakes, every Nigerians deserve a sober assessment of what has changed, and what still must change, if recapitalisation is to translate into a genuinely improved banking system. The points are who benefits most from its evolution, and whether ordinary Nigerians will feel the promised transformation in their everyday financial lives, because history has taught us that recapitalisation is never a neutral policy. The fact remains that recapitalization creates winners and losers, restructures incentives, and often leads to unintended outcomes that outlive the reform itself.

Concentration Risk: When the Big Get Bigger

Recapitalisation is meant to make banks stronger, and at the same time, it risks making them fewer and bigger, concentrating power and risks in an ever-narrowing circle. Nigeria’s Tier-1 banks, those already controlling roughly 70 percent of banking assets, are poised to expand further in both balance sheet size and market influence. This deepens the divide between the “haves” and “have-nots” within the sector. A critical fallout of this exercise has been the acceleration of consolidation. Stronger banks with ready access to capital markets, like Access Holdings and Zenith Bank, have managed to meet or exceed the new thresholds early by raising funds through rights issues and public offerings. Access Bank boosted its capital to nearly N595 billion, and Zenith Bank to about N615 billion.

In contrast, banks that lack deep pockets or the ability to quickly mobilise investors are lagging. The results always show that the biggest banks raise capital faster and cheaper, while smaller banks struggle to keep pace.

As of mid-2025, fewer than 14 of Nigeria’s 24 commercial banks met the required capital base, meaning a significant number were still scrambling, turning to rights issues, private placements, mergers, and even licensing downgrades to survive.

The danger here is not merely numerical. It is systemic: as capital becomes more concentrated, the banking system could inadvertently mimic oligopolistic tendencies, reducing competition, narrowing choices for customers, and potentially heightening systemic risk should one of these “too-big-to-fail” institutions falter.

Capital Flight or Strategic Expansion? The Foreign Subsidiary Question

One of the most contentious aspects of the recapitalisation aftermath has been the deployment of newly raised capital, especially its use outside Nigeria. Several banks, flush with liquidity from rights issues and injections, have signalled or executed investments in foreign subsidiaries and expansions abroad, like what we are experiencing with Nigerian banks spreading their tentacles to the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Kenya, and beyond. Zenith Bank’s planned expansion into the Ivory Coast exemplifies this outward push.

While international diversification can be a sound strategic move for multinational banks, there is an uncomfortable optics and developmental question here: why is Nigerian money being deployed abroad when millions of Nigerians remain unbanked or underbanked at home?

According to the World Bank, a large number of Nigeria’s adult population still lack access to formal financial services, while millions of SMEs, micro-entrepreneurs, and rural households remain on the edge, underserved by traditional banks that now chase profitability and scale.

Of a truth, redirecting Nigerian capital to foreign markets may deliver shareholder returns, but it does little in the short term to advance domestic financial inclusion, poverty reduction, or grassroots economic participation. The optics of capital flight, even when legal and strategic, demand scrutiny, especially in a nation still struggling with deep regional and demographic disparities.

Impact on Credit and the Real Economy

For the ordinary Nigerian, the most important question is simple: will recapitalisation make credit cheaper and more accessible?

History suggests the answer is not automatic. The tradition in Nigeria’s bank system is mainly to protect returns, and for this reason, many banks respond to higher capital requirements by tightening lending standards, raising interest rates, or focusing on low-risk government securities rather than private-sector loans, because raising capital is expensive, and banks are profit-driven institutions. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), often described as the engine of growth, are usually the first casualties of such risk aversion.

If recapitalisation results in stronger balance sheets but weaker lending to the real economy, then its benefits remain largely cosmetic. The economy does not grow on capital adequacy ratios alone; it grows when banks take measured risks to finance production, innovation, and consumption.

Retail Banking Retreat: Handing the Mass Market to Fintechs?

In recent years, we have witnessed one of the most striking shifts, or a gradual retreat of traditional banks from mass retail banking, particularly low-income and informal customers.

The question running through the hearts of many is whether Nigerian banks are retreating from retail banking, leaving space for fintech disruptors to fill the void.

In recent years, players like OPAY, Moniepoint, Palmpay, and a host of digital financial services arms have become de facto retail banking platforms for millions of Nigerians. They provide everyday payment services, wallet functionalities, micro-loans, and QR-enabled commerce, areas traditional banks once dominated. This trend has accelerated as banks chase corporate clients where margins are higher and risk profiles perceived as more manageable. The true picture of the financial landscape today is that the fintechs own the retail space, and banks dominate corporate and institutional finance. But it is unclear or uncertain if this model can continue to work effectively in the long term.

Despite the areas in which the Fintechs excel, whether in agility, product innovation, and customer experience, they still rely heavily on underlying banking infrastructure for liquidity, settlement, and regulatory compliance. Should the retail banking ecosystem become split between digital wallets and corporate corridors, rather than being vertically integrated within banks, systemic liquidity dynamics and financial stability could be affected. Nigerians deserve a banking system where the comforts and conveniences of digital finance are backed by the stability, regulatory oversight, and capital strength of licensed banks, not a system where traditional banks withdraw from retail, leaving unregulated or lightly regulated players to carry that mantle.

Corporate Governance: When Founders Tighten Their Grip

The recapitalisation exercise has not been merely a technical capital-raising exercise; it has become a theatre of power plays at the top. In several banks, founders and major investors have used the exercise to increase their stakes, concentrating ownership even as they extol the virtues of financial resilience.

Prominent founders, from Tony Elumelu at UBA to Femi Otedola at First Holdco and Jim Ovia at Zenith Bank, have all been actively increasing their shareholdings. These moves raise legitimate questions about corporate governance when founders increase control during a regulatory exercise. Are they driven by confidence in their institutions, or are they fortifying personal and strategic influence amid industry restructuring.

Though there might be nothing inherently wrong with founders or shareholders demonstrating faith in their institutions, one fact remains that the governance challenge lies not simply in who holds the shares, but how decisions are made and whose interests are prioritised. Will banks maintain robust internal checks and balances, ensuring that capital deployment aligns with national development goals? The question is whether the CBN is equipped with adequate supervisory bandwidth and tools to check potential excesses if emerging shareholder concentrations translate into undue influence or risks to financial stability. These are questions that transcend annual reports; they strike at the heart of trust in the system.

Regional Disparity in Lending: Lagos Is Not Nigeria

One of the persistent criticisms of Nigerian banking is regional lending inequality. It has been said that most bank loans are still overwhelmingly concentrated in Lagos and the Southwest, despite decades of financial deepening in this region; large swathes of the North, Southeast, and other underserved regions receive disproportionately smaller shares of credit. This imbalance not only undermines inclusive growth but also fuels perceptions of economic exclusion.

Recapitalisation, in theory, should have enhanced banks’ capacity to support broader economic activity. Yet, the reality remains that loans and advances are overwhelmingly concentrated in economic hubs like Lagos.

The CBN must deploy clear incentives and penalties to encourage geographic diversification of lending. This could include differentiated capital requirements, credit guarantees, or tax incentives tied to regional loan portfolios. A recapitalised banking system that does not finance national development is a missed opportunity.

Cybersecurity, Staff Welfare, and the Technology Deficit

Beyond balance sheets and brand expansion, there is a human and technological dimension to the banking sector’s challenge. Fraud remains rampant, and one of the leading frustrations voiced by Nigerians involves failed transactions, delayed reversals, and poor digital experience. Banks can raise capital, but if they fail to invest heavily in cybersecurity, fraud detection, staff training, and welfare, the everyday customer will continue to view the banking system as unreliable. Nigeria’s fintech revolution has thrived precisely because it has pushed incumbents to become more customer-centric, agile, and tech-savvy. If banks now flush with capital don’t channel a portion of those funds into robust IT systems, workforce development, fraud mitigation, and seamless customer service, then the recapitalisation will have achieved little beyond stronger balance sheets. In short, Nigerians should feel the difference, not merely in stock prices and market capitalisation, but in smooth banking apps, instant reversals, responsive customer care, and secure platforms.

The Banks Left Behind: Mergers, Failures, or Forced Restructuring?

With fewer than half the banks having fully complied with the recapitalisation requirements deep into 2025, a pressing question is: what awaits those that lag? Many banks are still closing capital gaps that run into hundreds of billions of naira. According to industry estimates, the total recapitalisation gap across the sector could reach as much as N4.7 trillion if all requirements are strictly enforced.

Banks that fail to meet the March 2026 deadline face a few options:

– Forced M&A. Regulators could effectively compel weaker banks to merge with stronger ones, echoing the consolidation wave of 2005 that reduced the sector from 89 to 25 banks.

– License downgrades or conversions. Some banks may choose to operate at a lower license category that demands a smaller capital base.

– Exits or closures. In extreme cases, banks that can neither raise capital nor find a merger partner might be forced out of the market.

This regulatory pressure should not be construed merely as punitive. It is part of the CBN’s broader architecture of ensuring that only solvent, well-capitalised, and risk-prepared institutions operate. However, the transition must be managed carefully to prevent contagion, protect depositors, and preserve confidence.

Why Are Tier-1 Banks Still Chasing Capital?

Perhaps the most intriguing puzzle is why some Tier-1 banks, long regarded as strong and profitable, are aggressively raising capital. Even banks thought to be among the strongest, such as UBA, First Holdco, Fidelity, GTCO, and FCMB, have struggled to close their capital gaps. UBA, for instance, succeeded in raising around N355 billion toward its N500 billion target at one point and planned additional rights issues to bridge the remainder.

This reveals another reality that capital is not just numbers on paper; it is investor confidence, market appetite, and macroeconomic stability.

One can also say that the answer lies partly in ambition to expand into new markets, infrastructure financing, and compliance with stricter global standards.

However, it also reflects deeper structural pressures, including currency depreciation eroding capital, rising non-performing loans, and the substantial funding required to support Nigeria’s development needs. Even giants are discovering that yesterday’s capital is no longer sufficient for tomorrow’s challenges.

Reform Without Deception

As the Nigerian banking sector recapitalization exercise comes to a close by March 31, 2026, the ultimate test will be whether the reforms deliver on their transformational promise.

Some of the concerns in the minds of Nigerians today will be to see a system that supports inclusive growth, equitable credit distribution, world-class customer service, and resilient financial intermediation. Or will we see a sector that, despite larger capital bases, still reflects old hierarchies, geographic biases, and operational friction? The cynic might say that recapitalisation simply made big banks bigger and empowered dominant shareholders. But a more hopeful perspective invites stakeholders, including regulators, customers, civil society, and bankers themselves, to co-design the next chapter of Nigerian banking; one that balances scale with inclusion, profitability with impact, and stability with innovation. The difference will be made not by press releases or shareholder announcements, but by deliberate regulatory action and measurable improvements in how banks serve the economy.

For now, the capital has been raised, but the true capital that counts is the confidence Nigerians place in their banks every time they log into an app, make a transfer, or deposit their life’s savings. Only when that trust is visible in everyday experience can we say that recapitalisation has truly succeeded.

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