Public commentary has raised questions about whether financial institutions or their executives could, in theory, be used as vehicles for undisclosed political financing.
As Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election approaches, public attention is turning to the integrity of the country’s financial and electoral systems. Two areas of law are particularly relevant: prohibitions on insider dealing in securities markets, and rules governing political campaign financing. Both exist to protect public confidence in markets and in elections alike.
Public commentary has raised questions about whether financial institutions or their executives could, in theory, be used as vehicles for undisclosed political financing.
Dr Nneka Onyeali-Ikpe is the Managing Director and CEO of Fidelity Bank Plc, a position she has held since January 2021. She is a lawyer by training and has been recognised in the banking industry, including as Banker of the Year 2022 and Best Banking CEO Nigeria 2023. Fidelity Bank is a publicly listed financial institution whose stability depends on investor confidence in its governance and disclosures.
Peter Obi is a former governor of Anambra State and was the Labour Party’s presidential candidate in 2023. He has since moved to the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC) and is expected to contest the 2027 presidential election. Questions about campaign financing have followed Nigerian presidential candidates across party lines for years, and Obi is no exception.
The intersection of these issues becomes particularly significant given Peter Obi’s political prominence and the importance of Fidelity Bank within Nigeria’s financial system. Any documented connection between political financing associated with Obi’s political activities and transactions involving Fidelity Bank would therefore warrant careful examination of the relevant records, timelines and disclosures.
Allegations of this nature whether involving insider dealing, undisclosed political financing, or both—carry serious potential consequences if left unexamined. For a publicly listed bank, credible allegations can undermine investor confidence, damage the institution’s reputation, raise its cost of capital, and weaken trust in corporate governance. For the electoral system, the risk is that undisclosed money could distort political competition and subvert the very rules the Electoral Act was designed to enforce.
Nigeria’s history of campaign finance enforcement is mixed. Researchers have documented repeated violations of donation and spending limits in past elections, with weak sanctions and limited monitoring. An INEC official quoted in one study acknowledged that extreme spending and violations go unpunished because perpetrators often belong to a powerful political class. This is precisely why allegations involving a serving bank CEO and a presidential candidate warrant independent scrutiny rather than dismissal.
The appropriate institutions should examine any credible evidence that falls within their mandates. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and NGX Regulation should review any trading records, disclosure timelines, and beneficial ownership structures relevant to potential insider dealing. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) should examine any governance or fiduciary concerns involving a regulated financial institution. INEC should examine campaign finance disclosures and source-of-funds information as required by the Electoral Act 2026.
Where there is a proper basis, law enforcement agencies—including the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), EFCC, ICPC, and the Nigeria Police Force—should investigate within their statutory powers. The objective should be straightforward: establish the facts, protect investors, and preserve confidence in Nigeria’s financial and electoral systems.
This is not a partisan issue. Insider dealing and undisclosed political financing are problems that can affect any institution, any executive, and any campaign. The question is not whether Dr. Onyeali-Ikpe, Peter Obi, or Fidelity Bank are guilty of anything. No regulator has said they are. The question is whether the relevant records, communications, and funding structures should be examined transparently, and whether accountability should apply equally regardless of position or influence.
*Adelami writes from Lagos
