A. Introduction:
Few sectors in Nigeria have changed as quickly, or as consequentially, as the payments industry. The spread of fintech platforms, the maturation of agency banking networks, and a steady rise in consumer uptake of electronic channels have together pushed Nigeria to the front of Africa’s digital payments story. What has grown alongside the volume, though, is structural complexity: new categories of payment service providers now sit in the same value chain as traditional financial institutions, creating layered dependencies and competitive pressures that regulators designed for an earlier era were simply not built to address.
Against this backdrop, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) recently issued its circular introducing Market Structure Requirements, Data Localisation, Ultimate Beneficial Ownership Disclosure and Systemic Oversight Measures within the Nigerian payments system (the Circular). The reforms, according to the CBN, were necessitated by growth that has simultaneously heightened concerns regarding market concentration, operational dependencies, systemic importance, and ownership transparency.
The Circular is not simply a compliance instrument. It is a statement of regulatory intent; a declaration by the CBN that it now conceives its supervisory mandate as extending not merely to the conduct of individual market participants, but to the architecture of the market itself. Scale, interconnectedness, ownership transparency, and cross-segment influence are no longer assessed purely through the lens of operational compliance. They are now weighed for what they imply about systemic resilience and the long-term integrity of critical financial infrastructure.
This article examines the three substantive pillars of the Circular, considers the novel regulatory philosophy that animates them, and assesses what they mean in practice for large payment operators, merchants, and consumers operating in Nigeria’s digital payments ecosystem.
B. The 3 Pillars of the Reform:
1. Ownership Transparency and UBO Disclosure
The Circular requires regulated entities to identify and maintain accurate records of the Ultimate Beneficial Owners (UBOs) of significant shareholders, and to make such information available to the CBN in fulfilment of applicable Anti-Money Laundering, Combating the Financing of Terrorism and Countering Proliferation Financing (AML/ CFT/ CPF) obligations.
For institutions with layered holding structures, nominee arrangements, or transnational shareholding chains, this demands substantive governance processes rather than administrative record-keeping alone. Major fintech operators backed by multi-fund vehicles, sovereign-linked investors, or offshore special purpose structures will need to engage offshore legal counsel and fund administrators to trace UBO chains through potentially multiple layers of holding companies. The CBN’s expectation of “accurate records” implies an ongoing maintenance obligation — not a one-off disclosure exercise — and regulated entities should be building operational processes to keep such records current as investor structures evolve.
Beyond financial crime prevention, UBO transparency serves a purpose that goes to the heart of the Circular’s broader ambition: it gives the CBN the visibility it needs to assess who actually exercises influence over critical payments infrastructure. In this respect the UBO requirement is as much a systemic oversight tool as it is an AML/CFT measure.
2. Data Localisation and Payment Data Sovereignty
The Circular mandates that all payment transaction data generated within Nigeria must be stored and processed domestically, with a compliance deadline of January 1, 2027. The CBN’s position is clear: payment data is critical national financial infrastructure, and unfettered supervisory access to it is non-negotiable.
For regulated entities, compliance will require a comprehensive review of cloud infrastructure, vendor agreements, and cross-border data flows. Institutions relying on overseas hosting or cloud arrangements will need to plan migration well in advance, as the operational adjustments involved are likely to be both time-consuming and resource-intensive. Notably, the data localisation deadline of 1 January 2027 is one day later than the market structure compliance deadline of 31 December 2026. Institutions managing both programmes simultaneously should note these are distinct but overlapping compliance windows requiring coordinated internal project management.
3. Market Structure Requirements
This is the most consequential element of the Circular. The CBN has introduced structural market share restrictions that cut across the payments value chain. It has backed that position with quantitative threshholds and a binding compliance deadline.
The Circular introduces cross-segment market share restrictions that operate in both directions. An institution, or group of related entities, controlling more than 25% of the card-issuing market within any rolling twelve-month period may not simultaneously hold more than 15% of the merchant-acquiring market. Crucially, the reciprocal applies with equal force: a dominant position in merchant acquiring exceeding 25% triggers a 15% cap in card issuing. Affected institutions must achieve compliance by 31 December 2026 and are subject to monthly market share reporting obligations using the CBN’s prescribed templates.
The significance of the reciprocal structure deserves emphasis. The Circular does not simply protect the merchant-acquiring market from dominant issuers — it also protects the issuing market from dominant acquirers. Large commercial banks with strong merchant POS networks, for example, face the same analytical question as large fintech issuers with dominant consumer wallet footprints: are they above the trigger threshold in their primary segment, and if so, how does that constrain their positioning in the other?
The restrictions apply not only to individual entities but to groups of related entities. This has significant implications for institutions that operate across multiple licences, affiliated businesses, or international group structures. Compliance assessments must extend beyond standalone entity metrics to encompass consolidated group positions. The Circular does not define “related entities” with precision, and clarity from the CBN on the scope of group aggregation will be essential before affected institutions can complete their compliance analysis with confidence.
Depending on their current market positions, affected institutions may need to consider some or all of the following structural responses:
3.1 Internal restructuring or ring-fencing of business lines to separate issuing and acquiring activities within the corporate structure;
3.2 Strategic reconfiguration of corporate group structures to address consolidated group market positions;
3.3 Reassessment of expansion and acquisition strategies, where planned growth in one segment may push a consolidated group above a threshold in the other; or
3.4 Divestment of certain business activities, where structural responses within the existing group are insufficient to achieve compliance.
C. The Regulatory Philosophy: From Participants to Structure:
Taken together, the three pillars of the Circular reflect a coherent and novel supervisory ambition. What the CBN seeks, across all three measures, is enhanced visibility over institutions whose size, interconnectedness, ownership structures, or operational dependencies could have implications for financial stability; and the tools to act on that visibility before problems crystallise.
This marks a departure from the conventional approach to payments regulation, which has historically focused on ensuring that individual institutions operate safely, maintain adequate capital, and comply with conduct requirements. The Circular does not abandon that framework, but it adds a dimension that individual-institution compliance has never been designed to address: the cumulative effect of market participants’ activities on the integrity of the payments ecosystem as a whole.
The CBN is no longer asking only whether each institution in the market is individually compliant. It is asking what the market itself looks like: who owns the infrastructure, where the data sits, and whether any single participant or group of related participants has accumulated cross-segment influence that could become a source of systemic fragility. The Circular is the CBN’s answer to those questions, cast in the form of enforceable obligations.
This shift in regulatory frame, from participant supervision to structural oversight, has implications that extend well beyond the specific obligations the Circular imposes. It signals that future CBN interventions in the payments sector will be evaluated against a systemic resilience standard, not merely a compliance checklist. Institutions that understand this shift will approach the Circular not as a set of boxes to tick but as an early signal of the supervisory environment in which they will operate for years to come.
D. Competition Regulation or Prudential Oversight?
The Circular raises a question of regulatory characterisation with practical consequences. Market concentration and abuse of dominant position are, in the ordinary course, matters for the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018. The Circular’s cross-segment restrictions pursue objectives that look, on their face, broadly comparable as they are designed to prevent institutions from leveraging dominance in one segment to entrench an advantage in another.
The CBN’s intervention finds its statutory basis in its broader mandate to regulate payment systems and promote the safety, efficiency and stability of Nigeria’s financial system. That mandate empowers the Bank not merely to supervise individual institutions but also to shape the architecture of the payments ecosystem itself. Seen in that light, the Circular is not declaring dominance unlawful in the competition law sense. It is identifying concentrations of cross-segment influence that may generate operational dependencies or single points of systemic failure, and acting pre-emptively to forestall them.
The Circular therefore sits at an intersection that Nigerian regulatory law has not previously needed to map: the space between competition policy and prudential supervision. The two frameworks pursue different statutory objectives — the FCCPC promotes competitive markets; the CBN safeguards financial stability — but their respective interventions will increasingly touch the same ground. A payment operator that restructures to comply with the CBN’s market share caps may find that the restructured position raises distinct questions under competition law, or vice versa: a FCCPC ruling on market dominance may complicate a CBN compliance strategy. Whether that produces complementary regulation or regulatory overlap will largely depend on coordination between the CBN and the FCCPC as this framework matures.
Regulated entities navigating both frameworks simultaneously should ensure that their legal strategies account for the interaction. Engaging both regulators proactively, rather than treating the CBN and FCCPC as entirely separate compliance exercises, is likely to produce more durable outcomes.
E. Why This Matters for Large Payment Operators:
The market structure requirements will have their greatest impact on large payment operators with significant footprints across multiple segments of the payments value chain. While the Circular does not identify any institution as exceeding the prescribed thresholds, major participants in card issuing, merchant acquiring, payment acceptance infrastructure, agency banking, and digital payment services will be assessing the implications closely.
For those institutions, the Circular arrives alongside and interacts directly with a separate CBN intervention that is already reshaping the market. The CBN’s Agent Banking Guidelines of April 2026 imposed single-principal exclusivity, requiring all POS agents to partner with only one financial institution. This ended the multi-homing model on which Nigeria’s largest agency banking networks were built. Institutions that had relied on exclusive agent relationships to anchor their merchant-acquiring footprint are now seeing those networks reconfigure as agents exercise their choice of principal.
The two rules compound each other. An institution managing agent attrition under the April 2026 exclusivity regime simultaneously faces the obligation to assess and, if necessary, restructure its consolidated market position under the June 2026 market structure rules. The commercial and legal challenges are distinct but operationally intertwined: agent agreement terminations or transfers triggered by compliance with one rule must be managed consistently with the obligations arising under the other. Institutions that treat these as separate compliance programmes risk compounding the disruption. A coordinated legal and commercial strategy that addresses both in parallel is the more defensible approach.
A further practical point concerns the group-level scope of the Circular. For institutions that operate across multiple licences or international group structures, the consolidated market position of the group, not just the individual licensed entity, may be the relevant metric. This analysis will require mapping the full corporate structure to identify which affiliated entities contribute to the market share calculation, a task that for some groups will engage offshore counsel and regulatory engagement in multiple jurisdictions.
F. Implications for Merchants and Consumers:
For merchants, the reforms bring a degree of transitional uncertainty alongside genuine opportunity. Reducing concentration in merchant acquiring may increase competition among providers, potentially translating into improved pricing, better service quality, and a wider range of options. Reduced dependence on a small number of payment providers is also a positive development for larger merchants. In the near term, however, compliance-driven restructuring may disrupt existing acquiring relationships, onboarding arrangements, and settlement structures. Large merchants for whom electronic payment acceptance is central to their operations should be tracking developments closely and considering whether their existing acquiring arrangements are likely to be affected by their providers’ compliance programmes.
Consumers are unlikely to experience immediate changes, as most compliance activities will occur at the institutional level. Over time, however, a more structurally balanced ecosystem may support sustained innovation and reduce the concentration-related risks that currently characterise parts of the market. It is worth noting that the broader regulatory environment already places direct cost pressures on consumers: the ₦50 stamp duty on electronic transfers of ₦10,000 and above, introduced under the Nigeria Tax Act 2025 with effect from 1 January 2026, has already begun to reshape the cost proposition for cost-sensitive users. The structural changes introduced by the Circular operate against this backdrop, and the ultimate measure of the framework’s success will be whether it preserves the financial inclusion gains achieved by the sector while strengthening resilience and promoting healthier market dynamics.
G. Compliance Challenges:
For all its structural ambition, the Circular leaves significant implementation questions open. Notably, it does not prescribe a methodology for calculating market share.
The Circular does not specify whether the relevant metric is transaction value, transaction volume, active card or merchant counts, or some composite measure. This is not a technical footnote. For any institution currently operating near a threshold, the choice of methodology will determine whether the rule applies at all, and if it does, by how much the institution needs to restructure. An institution may be below the 25% trigger on a volume basis but above it on a value basis, or vice versa. Until the CBN publishes or confirms the prescribed methodology, institutions cannot complete their compliance assessments with the confidence required to commit to irreversible structural changes.
This uncertainty is compounded by the monthly reporting obligations that the Circular imposes. Institutions must report using the CBN’s prescribed templates, but the templates themselves will inevitably reflect the CBN’s chosen methodology. Affected institutions should treat engagement with the CBN to obtain methodological clarity as the single most important first step in any compliance programme, rather than commencing restructuring on the basis of assumptions that may subsequently prove incorrect.
Beyond methodology, several other implementation questions remain unaddressed:
1. Threshold fluctuations: The Circular does not address the treatment of temporary breaches during a rolling reporting period. An institution that exceeds a threshold in one month due to seasonal transaction patterns may find itself technically non-compliant without any underlying change in its structural market position.
2. Transitional and grand-fathering arrangements: The Circular contains no provision for phased compliance, transitional waivers, or recognition of pre-existing market positions. Whether remediation periods will be available, and whether the CBN will accept a credible compliance roadmap in lieu of immediate restructuring, are matters on which guidance is urgently needed.
3. Consequences of inadvertent breach: The Circular is silent on the enforcement consequences of threshold breaches, whether inadvertent or otherwise. Affected institutions require clarity on whether self-reporting of a breach triggers automatic sanction or a structured remediation process.
4. Definition of related entities: As noted above, the Circular does not define the scope of group aggregation with precision. Institutions with complex corporate structures cannot finalize their compliance position without this clarification.
Proactive engagement with the CBN should form part of every compliance strategy from the outset, not as a measure of last resort, but as the mechanism through which these critical uncertainties are resolved. Institutions that wait for enforcement guidance to emerge organically risk running out of time.
H. Conclusion:
The CBN’s Circular is one of the structurally significant regulatory interventions in Nigeria’s payments sector in recent years. By addressing ownership transparency, data sovereignty, and cross-segment market concentration in a single instrument, and by coupling those measures with systemic oversight obligations, the CBN has signalled a comprehensive ambition to reshape governance and resilience in the Nigerian payments market.
What has changed is not merely the content of the rules but the frame within which payment market activity will be evaluated going forward. Nigeria’s Central Banker has moved from regulating market participants to regulating the market’s underlying structure. It is now asking not only whether institutions are individually compliant, but whether the cumulative shape of the market, who owns the infrastructure, where the data sits, and how cross-segment influence is distributed, is consistent with systemic resilience.
Payment service providers, financial institutions, investors and merchants must now evaluate strategic decisions through the CBN’s evolving conception of market resilience, alongside conventional commercial and financial considerations. Compliance with the Circular is therefore not merely a regulatory exercise; it is the first engagement with a fundamentally new supervisory paradigm; one that if subsequent interventions continue along this path, will progressively reshape how market power is acquired, held, and exercised across Nigeria’s payments value chain.
At AO2LAW®, we maintain foremost Financial Services Law (including Fintech Products and Services Law), Competition Law and Government Liaison Practices. Situated within our Commercial and Criminal Law Practice Group (CCLP), the Practices bring to bear our expertise in policy follow-through, legislative guidance and administrative law, thereby ensuring that appropriate guidance and representation are duly availed our clients.
For further information on the foregoing (none of which is a legal advice) or related matters, please generally contact us at cclp@ao2law.com, or specifically contact the authors
Please do not treat the foregoing as legal advice as it only represents the public commentary views of the authors. All enquiries on this should please be directed at the authors.
