adsThere is a particular genre of financial commentary that mistakes legal process for a factual verdict. A court delivers a first-instance ruling; procedural questions are raised, and before the ink is dry on the appeal filing, the narrative has already hardened: the regulator overreached, investor confidence is shattered, and Nigeria’s financial governance is on trial before the world. Much of the commentary currently circulating about Union Bank of Nigeria belongs to that genre. It is not without merit on certain procedural questions. But it is, at its core, incomplete — and incompleteness in financial journalism carries costs that run well beyond the column.
The acquisition that started everything
In 2022, Titan Trust Bank Limited, then chaired by Mr Tunde Lemo, acquired approximately 94 per cent of Union Bank of Nigeria, through two Dubai-registered entities: Luxis International DMCC, promoted by Mr Rahul Savara, and Mr Cornelius Vink’s Magna International DMCC, both linked to the Tropical General Investments (TGI) Group. The US$300 million transaction was financed. predominantly through an Afreximbank facility. The CBN’s policy is unambiguous: borrowed funds may not be used to acquire shares in a licensed financial institution. That principle exists because debt-funded acquisitions hollow out the very capital base they purport to build. That is precisely what happened. A forensic audit found that the Afreximbank loan was ultimately reflected in Union Bank’s own books, with no hedging arrangements against naira depreciation. As the currency weakened, revaluation losses intensified, and the capital adequacy ratio deteriorated into negative territory; non-performing loan exposure increased significantly, and a substantial capital shortfall emerged. Critically, as stated in the bank’s own notice of appeal, a special examination was conducted, and its findings were formally presented to former Managing Director Mudassir Amray and the board then chaired by Farouk Gumel, who was confronted with the institution’s grave financial condition and continuing regulatory infractions. The claim that the CBN acted without evidence before dissolving the board is, on the record, simply not accurate.
