Nigeria’s Recapitalised Banks and Missing Link Between Profit and Prosperity
By BLAISE UDUNZE
Nigeria’s banking industry has spent years rebuilding capital, restructuring institutions and celebrating stronger financial performance. Amidst all these developments, one fundamental question remains unanswered. The concern is how much of this financial strength is translating into productive investment, affordable credit, business expansion and employment.
The worry has grown more urgent after the Central Bank of Nigeria’s recapitalisation exercise, which brought in N4.65 trillion, in equity. By the end of March 2026, 33 of the country’s 37 banks had met the updated capital requirements. The exercise aimed to strengthen the system improve resilience and boost banks’ ability to finance economic growth.
But raising capital is not the same as expanding productive credit. A stronger balance sheet is not automatically a stronger economy.
One thing that is certain is that Nigeria’s banking industry is not short of institutions, financial expertise or regulatory reforms. As reality stares at Nigerians, the more difficult question is whether its growing financial capacity is being converted into financing for businesses that produce goods, create jobs, process local raw materials and expand the country’s export base.
Experiences from Morocco’s Attijariwafa Bank, Kenya’s Equity Group Holdings and Togo-headquartered Ecobank Transnational Incorporated offer useful benchmarks. Their institutional development, customer reach and regional operations provide different perspectives on the possibilities of modern African banking. They are not perfect models, and their operating environments differ from Nigeria’s. Nevertheless, their experiences offer a basis for asking whether Nigerian banking reform is delivering enough economic value beyond financial-sector growth.
The real test of recapitalisation is not simply how much capital banks have raised. It is what that capital ultimately enables them to do.
The first question is straightforward: what does a stronger capital base mean or the benefit of strengthening banks’ capital if productive businesses still struggle to obtain credit?
Capital is essential to and the backbone of banking. Amidst its many functions, it helps banks absorb losses, meet regulatory requirements, handle larger transactions and maintain customers’ confidence in their ability to keep their money safe. Nigeria’s recapitalisation exercise was therefore important. But its economic benefits depend partly on how banks deploy their expanded capacity.
The IMF’s May 2026 assessment, with clarity reviewed developments through the first quarter of 2026, found that private-sector credit remained relatively low, at approximately 12 per cent of GDP in 2025. It also observed that, despite growth in lending, which was obviously a huge contradiction, Nigeria’s financial markets were not adequately intermediating domestic savings into productive investment.
This is a more revealing measure of the challenge than the amount of capital raised alone. From the playout of activities, it is obvious that the banking industry can expand its balance sheets without financing a sufficiently broad range of businesses. Established and bigger corporations may obtain credit while smaller manufacturers, agricultural processors and emerging enterprises struggle with high interest rates, collateral requirements and short repayment periods.
The question is not whether Nigerian banks lend. They do. The question is whether the scale, cost and distribution of that lending adequately serve an economy seeking to diversify beyond oil, expand manufacturing and create sustainable employment.
Kenya’s Equity Group Holdings provides a useful point of comparison as this is discussed further. In a real sense, its success in attracting customers, using digital channels and supporting small businesses shows how banks can serve more people while keeping lending risks under control.
The lesson is not that Nigerian banks should simply copy Kenya. No doubt, Nigeria has different economic conditions, regulatory requirements and credit risks that may not apply to Kenya. Rather, the point is that recapitalisation should create opportunities to deepen lending, develop better products and improve the effectiveness of financial intermediation. It should not become a regulatory milestone celebrated independently of its economic consequences.
The second question is perhaps the most consequential: are Nigerian banks financing enough small businesses to make a measurable difference to the real economy? Here, the evidence deserves particular attention.
Findings showed that Equity Bank Kenya’s third-quarter 2025 investor booklet reported that the bank disbursed KSh90.7 billion ($701,255,970) in MSME loans between January and July 2025. Meanwhile, the amount represented 45 per cent of the KSh201 billion ($1,554,044,999) in MSME loan disbursements reported across the Kenyan banks included in its comparison. The booklet attributed the industry comparison to the Kenya Bankers Association.
This is a significant indicator of Equity Bank’s participation in Kenya’s MSME financing market. It suggests that a bank can make small-business lending a prominent part of its commercial activities while operating in a competitive banking system. Whilst Nigeria’s figures raise a different concern.
A research note published in October 2026 by Development Bank of Nigeria, citing the CBN statistical data, noted that credit classified to small-scale enterprises amounted to a meager and paltry N177.44 billion in 2025, when compared with enormous total private-sector credit of N47.10 trillion. The small-scale-enterprise category consequently represented approximately 0.38 per cent of private-sector credit. The same research note showed that the category’s share had declined substantially from its historical levels.
The figures deserve serious scrutiny. They suggest that Nigeria’s banking system has expanded enormously without a corresponding increase in the relative weight of credit recorded for small-scale enterprises.
However, the comparison requires an important qualification. Equity’s KSh90.7 billion ($701,255,970) represents loan disbursements over seven months, whereas Nigeria’s N177.44 billion ($132,417,910.45) represents an outstanding-credit measure for a narrower statistical category. The figures are not directly comparable, and they cannot establish that Equity’s lending performance is superior to that of every Nigerian bank. Nor should Nigeria’s small-scale-enterprise category automatically be treated as equivalent to the entire MSME sector.
That limitation does not invalidate the question. It makes the case for better Nigerian data even more compelling.