Business
Ten Banks Pay 143 Directors N7.6bn In 2015
The directors of ten banks collected N7.6 billion as fees and allowances in 2015, representing 1.58 percent of the banks’ profitability during the year. The ten banks are Guaranty Trust Bank, Zenith bank, Access Bank, FirstBank, UBA, Union Bank, Diamond Bank, Sterling Bank, Fidelity and Wema Bank.
Analysis of financial statements of the banks for the 2015 financial year, reveal that the ten banks increased total money paid to 143 directors by 11 percent or N742 million, from N6.84 billion in 2014 to N7.58 billion in 2015.
The amount paid to the directors represents 1.58 percent of the profit before tax of the ten banks, which stood at N480 billion in 2015. The amount paid to the directors also represented 2.0 percent of total staff salaries (personnel cost) in the ten banks.
Further analysis reveals inadequate disclosures relating to directors compensation, fees and allowances to board chairmen, and salaries of chief executive officers.
For example, Wema Bank did not specify amount paid as compensation to executive directors, while Access Bank and Sterling Bank failed to disclose money paid to their chairmen and chief executive officers.
Total board expenses GTBank led the ten banks, with N1.25 billion paid to its 14 directors in 2015, up from N1.2 billion in 2014.
Zenith Bank came second, with N1.145 billion paid to 10 directors in 2015, up from N630 million in 2014.
Acess Bank and FirstBank came third and fourth respectively, with N1.08 billion and N1.05 billion paid to 14 and 17 directors respectively.
The fifth highest board expenses was incurred by UBA, which paid N603 million to its 16 directors in 2015, up from N600 million in 2014.
Others are Union Bank-N983 million, Diamond Bank-N195 million, Sterling Bank-N265 million, Fidelity Bank-N766 million and Wema Bank-N235 million Executive Compensation
The ten banks, with the exception of Wema Bank, paid N4.63 billion to 52 executive directors. This represented two percent decline from N4.72 billion in 2014.
On the average, each executive directors got N89 million in 2015, down from N91 million in 2014. FirstBank came first as its six executive directors (E.Ds) were paid N784 million, up from N694 million in 2014.
GTbank came second, with N718 million paid to six E.Ds, up from N691 million. The seven E.Ds of Access bank were paid N705 million in 2015, down from N1,12 billion in 2014.
Union Bank paid its six E.Ds N625 million in 2015, up from N542 million in 2014, while Zenith Bank paid its four E.Ds N595 million in 2015, up from N414 million in 2014.
UBA paid its six E.Ds N547 million, down from N555 million in 2014. Others were Diamond Bank with five EDs – 149 million, Sterling Bank with six EDs – N156 million, and Fidelity with six EDs – N346 million. Union Bank CEO tops pay.
Analysis of amount paid to the highest director, the Chief Executive Officer (CEOs), by eight banks reveal the CEOs of eight banks were paid N903 million as salaries and compensations.
This was 13 percent higher than the N798 million paid to the CEOs in 2014. The CEO of Union Bank received the highest pay with N208 million, representing 36 percent or N55 million increase from the N153 million earned in 2014. GTBank CEO came second earning receiving N204.9 million, up by 12 percent or N22 million from N183 million in 2014. The CEOs of UBA and Fidelity Bank came third and fourth earning N125 million and N102 million respectively in 2015, up from N116 million and N94 million in 2014. Others are FirstBank-N90 million, Zenith Bank-N78 million, Wema Bank-N70 million, and Diamond Bank-N25 million.
Shareholders call for review
Shareholders however were of the view that the amount paid to banks directors though huge and not in sync with economic realities, is necessary to prevent them from stealing depositors money, and also in view of the amount of work they have to do to generate earnings for their banks. “If the banks’ executives are well paid, the temptation of stealing depositors’ money will not arise,” stated Mr. Boniface Okezie, Chairman, Progressive Shareholders Association of Nigeria, PSAN.
“However, considering the economic downturn, I think the banks can equally cut the package they take home to reflect the present economic realities. If States Governors and Ministers are cutting their salaries, I think the banks should equally follow suit. There are some allowances for banks’ executives that need to be cut down or completely be removed. It is time for companies to tighten their belts given the global oil fall which had affected the country’s income.
So, if the economy picks up, banks can review the packages paid to their executive directors. But under normal circumstances, the banks’ executive should be well remunerated given the nature of the risk they undertake. If they are under paid, then you be begin to see all kinds of stealing and rubbery in the banks through insider collaboration”, he said.
Mr. Taiwo Oderinde, Chairman, Proactive Shareholders Association of Nigeria, PROSAN, on his part said the huge money paid to directors was unfair to shareholders. He said, “
“The banks’ executive compensations is really on the high side when you compare it to other countries. The executive directors of banks are given all kinds of allowances at the expense of depositors and shareholders. We do react on this issue when we attend
Annual General Meetings, AGMs. In some cases, we refused to approve their remunerations and ask them to go back and review it. “The problem we are having as shareholders is that in some cases we don’t have shareholders’ representation on the board. By the time they set up committee to review the remuneration you will only see executive directors taking decisions. The executive directors are really feeding on shareholder’ fund and this has to be checked by the regulators in the industry.
The executive directors have access to our funds and make use of it the way they like. I think there should be regulation in this aspect of emolument to stop these mouth watering packages.”
According to the Chairman, Renaissance Shareholders Association of Nigeria, Ambassador Olufemi Timothy, “The banks’ executive emolument is not too much considering the earnings they make for the bank. These are people who toil all day and night to see that depositors’ money is kept safely. So the high risk element should also be another great reason why they should be paid well. Even the so called Foreign Exchange, (forex ) are kept by these banks.
Furthermore, if banks’ executives are well paid the issue of stealing or fraudulent practices would be drastically reduced or even eliminated. I believe the packages for executive directors are not too much given the volume of work they do and the income they make for the institutions.”
“My position on this issue is that it should be looked at on the contribution they bring to the organisation”, stated, Mr. Nonah Awoh, a shareholder activist. “ It is not how big or how small the packages are, the concern should be on the equity remuneration of employees.
What is the disparity between the Chief Executive Director and other senior management? If the differential is too high, then it is not good for the organisation. Banks should be careful if fixing remuneration so that it does not affect what they are giving to shareholders in form of returns on investment”, he said.
Source: Vanguard
Tinubu’s Economic Agenda in Crisis: North-South Divide Strikes Again
By George Omagbemi Sylvester
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, elected in 2023 on the wings of political calculation and elite manipulation, has now found himself caught in the snare of Nigeria’s enduring historical curse: the north-south divide. His ambitious economic reform agenda, intended to liberalize the economy, remove structural inefficiencies, and reduce government expenditure—has hit a legislative wall. But this isn’t just about policy. This is about power, patronage, and the ancient scars of a fractured federation.
The rejection of critical aspects of Tinubu’s economic proposals by lawmakers is a stinging rebuke, not only to his administration but to the very idea that Nigeria can be reformed from the top down without confronting its structural imbalances. In many ways, Tinubu’s presidency is now facing the same nightmare that has haunted every Nigerian leader since independence: how do you govern a country that was never truly united?
The Crumbling Reform Agenda
At the center of the storm is Tinubu’s proposal to centralize and streamline federal subsidies and remove what he termed “wasteful duplication of agencies.” This was meant to continue the subsidy removal narrative started in June 2023, and reduce fiscal leakage. However, the backlash, particularly from legislators representing the northern states, was swift and coordinated.
The northern bloc, comprising lawmakers from Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, and Borno, objected on the grounds that Tinubu’s proposals disproportionately affect their regions, where federal allocation remains a critical lifeline in the absence of strong internally generated revenue. But critics argue this is a strategic form of sabotage, aimed at retaining an unsustainable status quo that prioritizes political patronage over national progress.
As Prof. Wale Adebanwi of Oxford University has argued, “Nigeria’s northern elite have historically benefited from the spoils of a rentier state, with oil wealth redistributed without the burden of productive contribution. Any move to reverse this equation is seen as existential.”
Tinubu, a southerner from Lagos, with strong Christian support from the Southwest and Southeast, is now facing the very brick wall that has impeded reforms since the First Republic. His own political survival now depends on how much compromise he’s willing to make—or whether he can break the mold entirely.
A Century-Old Fracture
The rejection of Tinubu’s reforms by northern lawmakers is not new. It is deeply rooted in a century-old tension embedded in the structure of the Nigerian state. The 1914 amalgamation, engineered by British colonialists, fused two vastly different regions, the industrializing, Western-educated Christian south and the feudal, Islamic north, into one artificial political entity.
From independence in 1960, this contradiction has remained unresolved. “Nigeria was created not to function as a cohesive nation, but as an economic convenience for its colonial masters,” noted historian Max Siollun. “What we’re seeing is the consequence of a nation built on convenience rather than consensus.”
The economic priorities of the north and south remain deeply divergent. While the south boasts ports, oil revenue, industries, and a growing tech sector, the north has remained largely agrarian, dependent on federal allocations and political appointments. Any attempt to tamper with this redistribution—whether via subsidy removal or cuts in federal spending, provokes immediate resistance.
Reform vs. Redistribution
Tinubu’s administration promised reforms: subsidy removal, tax reform, and investment in critical infrastructure. But all reforms require sacrifices, and those sacrifices must be nationally distributed to succeed. What Tinubu is discovering, painfully, is that reforms without inclusive buy-in are dead on arrival.
Economist Dr. Obiageli Ezekwesili captured the challenge succinctly: “Nigeria’s political economy is structured around the sharing of oil rents, not the creation of wealth. Any attempt to disrupt this structure will provoke fierce opposition from those who depend on the current dysfunction for survival.”
Indeed, the loudest resistance to Tinubu’s reforms has come not from the opposition PDP or Labour Party, but from within his own APC, particularly from northern senators and representatives who feel alienated by the president’s southern-centric economic vision.
The Ghost of Buhari
Many Nigerians are now drawing comparisons between Tinubu’s presidency and that of his predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari, a northern Muslim who governed with overwhelming support from the north. Buhari’s policies favored heavy spending, a bloated civil service, and minimal economic restructuring, a model that created illusions of stability while deepening the economic rot.
“Buhari governed like a tribal chief, rewarding loyalty over competence, and expanding a culture of dependency,” said Prof. Kingsley Moghalu, former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank. “Tinubu’s efforts to break away from that legacy will require courage, strategy, and above all, an appeal to national interest.”
But appealing to national interest in Nigeria is easier said than done. The political class thrives on division. The north fears marginalization, the south resents over-centralization, and the middle belt remains trapped in identity crises. Tinubu, in failing to build a coalition around his reforms, is now paying the price of elite disunity.
The Danger of Ethno-Political Paralysis
The rejection of Tinubu’s agenda is not just a political problem, it is an economic time bomb. Nigeria is drowning in debt, with over 90% of its revenue now going to debt servicing. Inflation is running rampant, the naira has crashed, and unemployment remains alarmingly high. The country cannot afford to maintain the current level of government spending without reform.
But if every economic policy must first pass the tribal test, then reform is doomed. “A nation that filters every economic decision through the lens of ethnicity is a nation marching toward collapse,” warned Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka. “If Nigeria cannot rise above its primordial divisions, it cannot survive the 21st century.”
What Next for Tinubu?
Tinubu’s next steps are critical. Will he revise his reforms to appease northern lawmakers and keep the political peace? Or will he double down, use executive power, and mobilize the Nigerian people behind a populist push for structural change?
There is a middle path, dialogue, renegotiation of the federal structure, and regional empowerment. Many have called for fiscal federalism, where regions generate and control their own revenues, sending only a fraction to the center. This model, already practiced in countries like Canada and the United States, could reduce the perennial tension around federal allocation.
Political economist Ayo Teriba suggests, “Nigeria must move away from revenue-sharing to revenue-generation. That shift requires not just policy but a new national consensus, and that is where Tinubu must lead.”
In conclusion: Lead or Collapse
President Tinubu is at a crossroads. He can continue playing the dangerous game of balancing regional interests with national imperatives, or he can rise above the tribal chessboard and lead with boldness. The north-south divide is not just a historical relic, it is a living cancer that must be addressed through structural reform, not rhetorical appeasement.
The economic reform agenda is not a southern agenda. It is a Nigerian necessity. If lawmakers continue to sabotage reform because it threatens their regional comfort zones, then the entire nation will suffer. As the saying goes, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
In the end, Tinubu must decide: will he be a president of compromise, or a reformer of consequence?
-
Business6 months agoComprehensive Media Audit Shows Flutterwave, MTN Nigeria, and Bolt Outpacing Competitors in Media Engagement
-
celebrity radar - gossips6 months agoHow Deji Adeyanju Secured The Release Of Speed Darlington
-
Politics7 months agoMy best is yet to come’ As Ambassador Adesina ‘Lanre Ogunsola affirmed at the APC APEX body, Obafemi Owode Local Government
-
Entertainment4 months agoAliu Gafar delivers stellar performance as Esusu in Femi Adebayo’s Seven Doors
You must be logged in to post a comment Login