Opinion
Fuss Over BVN Deadline
Justice Nnamdi
Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja, caused nervousness among stakeholders in Nigerian banks with his recent interim order for the forfeiture to the Federal Government of all monies in the bank accounts of corporate/governmental institutions and individuals that are without Bank Verification Numbers (BVN).
The court had also ruled that the order should be enforced two weeks from the date it was issued if owners of such accounts failed to show cause why their monies should not be relinquished.
It further ordered the 19 commercial banks in the country to disclose the details of all such accounts in their custody, the balances in the accounts, their owners and their proceeds in affidavit of compliance deposed to by their chief compliance officers, pending the determination of the substantive suit. The order followed an application by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, on behalf of the Federal Government.
This ruling has brought forth mixed reactions across the length and breadth of the country. The banks are already considering filing a class-action suit to prevent the Federal Government from executing the order.
The government claims that as at February 2017 there were over 51.72 million accounts in the banking sector without BVN. A statement by the Nigerian Interbank Settlement System, NIBSS, indicated that there were a total of 97.57 million accounts in the banking sector as at February with only 51.72 million of them with BVN.
The development has engendered raging debates on the legality or otherwise of the planned forfeiture of funds in accounts without BVN. Opinions are segmented while some Nigerians keep fulminating against the government; has government crossed permissive lines in the banking industry?
Many Nigerians have interrogated its legality and have reached the conclusion that the action, if implemented, will discourage financial inclusion that the nation is in dire need of. They equally fear that the seizure of these funds may also inhibit financial system stability.
As the argumentation advances, the questions to ask are, what will happen if an account holder has died and the matter is in administration or when money in an account is a subject of litigation? What will the bank do in such circumstances? Will it abdicate a customer’s deposit and face litigation?
Again, what will be the fate of Nigerians in Diaspora who have accounts domiciled in the country but are without BVNs? What about Nigerians serving long prison terms? Will they lose their deposits as well?
To me, these are questions that require immediate answers, not the uncertainties that the ordered loss may throw up. Clearly, the plan by government to take over monies in these accounts isn’t well thought-out. The scheme was rushed through to ambush funds in certain bank accounts that have not been linked to the BVN scheme.
The Federal Government needs to adopt cautious approach to the matter to avert actions that may derail the intended gains of the court order, which is to rid the banking industry of money laundry and other inappropriate practices.
There is also the apprehension that if implemented, the relinquishment order could lead to a liquidity squeeze in the country, even if it enhances honesty and transparency in the banking sector. That may eventually cause the economy to shrink again and become very complicated to manage. These options have to be carefully weighed.
What I expect the government to do is to develop policies that will embolden rather than dampen financial inclusion. Moreover, there are still challenges in the implementation of the BVN scheme which should have been corrected by now before resorting to the courts to confiscate monies without BVNs.
I am not inadvertent of the fact that the Federal Government is desperately seeking ways to broaden its revenue base. But this shouldn’t be done at the prejudice of the citizens’ constitutional rights. I agree completely with lawyers who have argued that deploying interim orders for permanent purposes such as individual or corporate assets does not forebode well for Nigerians.
After all, there is no provision in the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act (2011), that makes BVN a condition precedent to operate a bank account in Nigeria. BVN is a mere policy decision of the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, and so lacks the force of law. As such, it may not be expedient for a competent court of law to base its decision on an executive policy not backed by law.
The truth is that the CBN has to grant all account holders sufficient time to comply with its directive. Enforcing the order of forfeiture without an Act of the National Assembly amounts to illegality and an infraction of the constitutional rights of citizens and the corporate bodies involved.
Rather than seize funds in the accounts, the government should restrict access to non BVN accounts, especially if it vigorously suspects that they are being utilised for money laundering and other illegal activities.
By: Arnold Alalibo
From all indications, Nigeria possesses enough human and material resources to become a true economic powerhouse in Africa. According to the National Population Commission (NPC, 2023), the country’s population has grown steadily within the last decade, presently standing at about 220 million people—mostly young, vibrant, and innovative. Nigeria also remains the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, with enormous reserves of gas, fertile agricultural land, and human capital.
Yet, despite this enormous potential, the country continues to grapple with underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2023) show that about 129 million Nigerians currently live below the poverty line. Most families can no longer afford basic necessities, even as the government continues to project a rosy economic picture.
The Subsidy Question
The removal of fuel subsidy in 2023 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been one of the most controversial policy decisions in Nigeria’s recent history. According to the president, subsidy removal was designed to reduce fiscal burden, unify the foreign exchange rate, attract investment, curb inflation, and discourage excessive government borrowing.
While these objectives are theoretically sound, the reality for ordinary Nigerians has been severe hardship. Fuel prices more than tripled, transportation costs surged, and food inflation—already high—rose above 30% (NBS, 2023). The World Bank (2023) estimates that an additional 7.1 million Nigerians were pushed into poverty after subsidy removal.
A Critical Economic View
As an economist, I argue that the problem was not subsidy removal itself—which was inevitable—but the timing, sequencing, and structural gaps in Nigeria’s implementation.
- Structural Miscalculation
Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain nonfunctional. By removing subsidies without local refining capacity, the government exposed the economy to import-price pass-through effects—where global oil price shocks translate directly into domestic inflation. This was not just a timing issue but a fundamental policy miscalculation.
- Neglect of Social Safety Nets
Countries like Indonesia (2005) and Ghana (2005) removed subsidies successfully only after introducing cash transfers, transport vouchers, and food subsidies for the poor (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria, however, implemented removal abruptly, shifting the fiscal burden directly onto households without protection.
- Failure to Secure Food and Energy Alternatives
Fuel subsidy removal amplified existing weaknesses in agriculture and energy. Instead of sequencing reforms, government left Nigerians without refinery capacity, renewable energy alternatives, or mechanized agricultural productivity—all of which could have cushioned the shock.
Political and Public Concerns
Prominent leaders have echoed these concerns. Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the subsidy removal as “good but wrongly timed.” Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also faulted the government’s hasty approach. Human rights activists like Obodoekwe Stive stressed that refineries should have been made functional first, to reduce the suffering of citizens.
This is not just political rhetoric—it reflects a widespread economic reality. When inflation climbs above 30%, when purchasing power collapses, and when households cannot meet basic needs, the promise of reform becomes overshadowed by social pain.
Broader Implications
The consequences of this policy are multidimensional:
- Inflationary Pressures – Food inflation above 30% has made nutrition unaffordable for many households.
- Rising Poverty – 7.1 million Nigerians have been newly pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2023).
- Middle-Class Erosion – Rising transport, rent, and healthcare costs are squeezing household incomes.
- Debt Concerns – Despite promises, government borrowing has continued, raising sustainability questions.
- Public Distrust – When government promises savings but citizens feel only pain, trust in leadership erodes.
In effect, subsidy removal without structural readiness has widened inequality and eroded social stability.
Missed Opportunities
Nigeria’s leaders had the chance to approach subsidy removal differently:
- Refinery Rehabilitation – Ensuring local refining to reduce exposure to global oil price shocks.
- Renewable Energy Investment – Diversifying energy through solar, hydro, and wind to reduce reliance on imported petroleum.
- Agricultural Productivity – Mechanization, irrigation, and smallholder financing could have boosted food supply and stabilized prices.
- Social Safety Nets – Conditional cash transfers, food vouchers, and transport subsidies could have protected the most vulnerable.
Instead, reform came abruptly, leaving citizens to absorb all the pain while waiting for theoretical long-term benefits.
Conclusion: Reform With a Human Face
Fuel subsidy removal was inevitable, but Nigeria’s approach has worsened hardship for millions. True reform must go beyond fiscal savings to protect citizens.
Economic policy is not judged only by its efficiency but by its humanity. A well-sequenced reform could have balanced fiscal responsibility with equity, ensuring that ordinary Nigerians were not crushed under the weight of sudden change.
Nigeria has the resources, population, and resilience to lead Africa’s economy. But leadership requires foresight. It requires policies that are inclusive, humane, and strategically sequenced.
Reform without equity is displacement of poverty, not development. If Nigeria truly seeks progress, its policies must wear a human face.
References
- National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Poverty and Inequality Report. Abuja.
- National Population Commission (NPC). (2023). Population Estimates. Abuja.
- World Bank. (2023). Nigeria Development Update. Washington, DC.
- World Bank. (2005). Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Lessons from Indonesia and Ghana. Washington, DC.
- OPEC. (2023). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Vienna.
By: Amarachi Amaugo