Finance

CBN’s eNaira to grow Nigeria’s GDP by $29bn in 10yrs: Buhari

3 Mins read

President Muhammadu Buhari says the adoption of Central Bank Digital Currency(CBDC) can increase Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product(GDP) by 29 billion dollars over the next 10 years.

Buhari made this submission on Monday while performing the formal Unveiling of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Digital Currency, eNaira at the Presidential Villa, Abuja.

He said that, by the introduction of the eNaira, Nigeria had become the first country in Africa, and one of the first in the world to introduce a digital currency to its citizens.

The president said there were Nigeria-specific benefits of the digital currency that cut across different sectors of the economy.

“In recent times, the use of physical cash in conducting business and making payments has been on the decline; this trend has been exacerbated by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resurgence of a new Digital Economy.

“Alongside these developments, businesses, households, and other economic agents have sought for new means of making payments in the new circumstances.

“The absence of a swift and effective solution to these requirements, as well as fears that central banks’ actions sometimes lead to hyperinflation created the space for non-government entities to establish new forms of private currencies that seemed to have gained popularity and acceptance across the world, including here in Nigeria.

“In response to these developments, an overwhelming majority of central banks across the world have started to consider issuing digital currencies in order to cater for businesses and households seeking faster, safer, easier and cheaper means of payments.’’

According to the president, a handful of countries including China, Bahamas, and Cambodia have already issued their own CBDCs.

Buhari said that a 2021 survey of central banks around the world by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) found that almost 90 percent were actively researching the potential for CBDCs.

He said that the survey also found that 60 percent were experimenting with the technology while 14 percent were deploying pilot projects.

“Needless to add, close monitoring and close supervision will be necessary in the early stages if implementation to study the effect of eNaira on the economy as a whole.

“It is on the basis of this that the CBN sought and received my approval to explore issuing Nigeria’s own CBDC, named the eNaira.

“This move was underpinned by the fact that the CBN has been a leading innovator in the form of money they produce, and in the payment services they deploy for efficient transactions.

“They have invested heavily in creating a payment system that is ranked in the top ten in the world and certainly the best in Africa.

`This payment system now provides high‐value and time‐critical payment services to financial institutions, and ultimately serves as the backbone for every electronic payment in Nigeria.’’

President Buhari said the apex bank had also supported several private‐sector initiatives to improve the existing payments landscape, and in turn, had created some of the world’s leading payment service providers.

He said that the efforts to create Nigeria’s digital currency began in 2017.

“While the journey to create a digital currency for Nigeria began sometime in 2017, work intensified over the past several months with several brainstorming exercises, deployment of technical partners and advisers.

“Collaboration with the Ministry of Communication and Digital Economy and its sister agencies like the Nigerian Communications Commission, integration of banking softwares across the country and painstaking tests to ensure the robustness, safety and scalability of the CBDC System.

“Let me note that aside from the global trend to create digital currencies, we believe that there are Nigeria-specific benefits that cut across different sectors of, and concerns of the economy.

“The use of CBDCs can help move many more people and businesses from the informal into the formal sector, thereby increasing the tax base of the country.

“Alongside digital innovations, CBDCs can foster economic growth through better economic activities. Indeed, some estimates indicate that the adoption of CBDC and its underlying technology, called blockchain, can increase Nigeria’s GDP by 29 billion dollars over the next 10 years.’’

He said that CBDCs could also help increase remittances, foster cross border trade, improve financial inclusion, make monetary policy more effective, and enable the government to send direct payments to citizens eligible for specific welfare programmes.

“It is on these basis that I am delighted to officially launch the CBN Digital Currency, called the eNaira, and in so doing, we have become the first country in Africa, and one of the first in the world to introduce a Digital Currency to her citizens.’’

Buhari commended CBN Governor, Godwin Emefiele, his deputies and the entire members of staff who worked tirelessly to make the day a reality.

In his remarks, Emefiele said that the eNaira was Nigeria’s CBDC and the digital equivalent of the physical Naira.

According to the CBN governor, the eNaira – like the physical Naira – is a legal tender in Nigeria and a liability of the CBN.

“The eNaira and Naira will have the same value and will always be exchanged at 1 naira to 1 e-Naira,” he said.

The highlight of the event was the symbolic unveiling of e-Naira by President Buhari, assisted by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo and the CBN governor.

Source: Guardian.ng

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a general interest Magazine with its headquarters in Abuja, the nation’s Capital.
Articles
Related posts
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryDevelopmentEconomyFinance

Ethical Health Finance Has Emerged As A Compelling and Distinctly Nigerian Response to a Long-standing National Challenge - Dr. Usman Gwarzo

5 Mins read
Nigeria’s healthcare system stands at a critical crossroads. Despite decades of policy reforms, donor interventions, and repeated commitments to Universal Health Coverage,…
BankingBusinessCover StoryEconomyFinanceNews

Fidelity Bank Grows Gross Earnings by 46% to ₦748.7 billion for H1 2025

1 Mins read
Fidelity Bank Plc has announced its audited financial results for the half-year ended 30 June 2025, demonstrating resilience and sustained growth across…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com