Author
No results available
When a foreign investor is hit with CBN compliance issues after completing an acquisition in Nigeria, the consequences can range from frozen repatriation rights and administrative penalties to, in extreme cases involving regulated financial institutions, an order reversing the transaction altogether. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has steadily expanded its supervisory reach across foreign exchange controls, beneficial ownership reporting and change-of-control approvals, and non-compliance gaps that went undetected during due diligence are surfacing with increasing frequency. At Dentons ACAS-Law, I regularly advise cross-border acquirers who find themselves in precisely this position: the deal has closed, the champagne has been poured, and then a CBN letter arrives.
This article sets out the practical, step-by-step playbook I walk clients through, from the first 48 hours of crisis triage right through to contractual recovery against sellers, so that counsel and in-house teams can move quickly and protect value.
This guide is designed for foreign investors, in-house legal teams and transaction counsel who need to understand, and act on, CBN compliance gaps discovered after closing a Nigerian acquisition. In summary, it addresses:
The CBN exercises broad supervisory authority over Nigeria’s financial system. Its mandate covers the licensing and regulation of deposit money banks and other financial institutions, the administration of foreign exchange policy under the CBN Foreign Exchange Manual, and the oversight of payment systems. For foreign investors, the most consequential areas of CBN compliance include the requirement to obtain prior approval for any acquisition that results in a change of control of a bank, the obligation to register foreign capital inflows through an authorised dealer bank, and compliance with anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer (KYC) rules aligned with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards.
The U.S. Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for Nigeria confirms that while Nigeria generally permits foreign ownership of companies, specific sectoral restrictions apply, particularly in banking, insurance, oil and gas, and broadcasting, where CBN or other regulators impose shareholding caps or prior-approval requirements. Ignoring these requirements does not merely create a paperwork problem; it can render the entire share transfer voidable in the eyes of the regulator.
In my experience, the CBN compliance issues most commonly discovered after closing fall into four categories:
Any one of these can trigger enforcement action. Multiple gaps compounding at once, which is not uncommon where pre-deal due diligence was rushed, can escalate the severity of the CBN’s response dramatically.
Speed matters. The first 48 hours after discovering a CBN compliance gap, whether flagged by the regulator, your authorised dealer bank, or your own post-closing audit, set the tone for the entire remediation effort. From what I have seen in practice, regulators respond far more favourably to investors who self-report and move proactively than to those who wait for an enforcement notice.
Here is the prioritised action list I recommend:
The following is a condensed template for the initial instruction to Nigerian counsel (this is illustrative only and should be adapted to each transaction):
“We write to instruct you on an urgent basis. Our client, [Investor Name], completed the acquisition of [X]% of [Target Company] on [date]. Post-closing review has identified potential non-compliance with CBN requirements relating to [describe gap, e.g., change-of-control approval / FX registration / KYC filings]. Please advise immediately on: (a) the scope and severity of the regulatory exposure; (b) the recommended remediation steps and timeline; and (c) any enforcement precedent relevant to these facts. Time is of the essence.”
Once the gap analysis is complete, the priority is to prepare and submit remedial filings to the CBN. The specific filings depend on the nature of the target and the type of compliance gap, but the most common remediation steps include:
If the target is a public company listed on the Nigerian Exchange (formerly the Nigerian Stock Exchange), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must be notified of any material change in beneficial ownership. Failure to make timely disclosure can trigger separate enforcement by the SEC, including fines and trading suspensions. The Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) must also receive updated filings reflecting the new shareholding structure. Under CAMA 2020, companies are required to maintain a register of persons with significant control, the beneficial ownership register, and to file this with the CAC.
Beneficial ownership transparency is increasingly a compliance priority in Nigeria, consistent with FATF recommendations. Where the target’s BO register is incomplete or does not reflect the post-acquisition ownership chain, the following steps are necessary:
In my practice, I recommend a structured post-closing compliance checklist organised around three time horizons:
The SPA is the buyer’s first line of defence when undisclosed CBN compliance issues emerge post-closing. Most well-drafted Nigerian M&A agreements include specific indemnities covering regulatory non-compliance, as well as general warranties that the target has obtained all necessary governmental approvals. The critical point, and one I cannot stress enough, is that the buyer must comply with the notice provisions in the SPA. A failure to notify the seller within the contractual timeframe, or a failure to provide the required particulars of the claim, can forfeit the indemnity entirely.
Where the parties have agreed to an escrow or holdback, typically between 5% and 15% of the purchase price, held for 12 to 24 months, the buyer should immediately assess whether the discovered compliance gap falls within the scope of the escrow release conditions. If it does, the buyer should:
This template is for guidance only and must be adapted to the specific transaction terms.
“Dear [Seller / Seller’s Counsel], Pursuant to Clause [X] of the Share Purchase Agreement dated [date] between [Buyer] and [Seller] relating to the acquisition of [Target Company] (the ‘Agreement’), we hereby notify you of a claim under the indemnity provisions. Post-closing review has identified that [Target Company] failed to [describe specific CBN compliance gap, e. g. , obtain prior CBN approval for the change of control / register foreign capital inflows through an authorised dealer]. This constitutes a breach of Warranty [X. X] and/or triggers Indemnity [Y. Y] of the Agreement. We estimate the potential loss at [amount or range], comprising [regulatory fines / remediation costs / lost repatriation value].
We reserve all rights under the Agreement and request your urgent engagement. This notice is given without prejudice to any further claims.
Under Nigerian law, contractual limitation periods are generally enforceable provided they are not unconscionable. Most SPAs set warranty claim windows of 18 to 24 months for general warranties and longer periods, sometimes up to seven years, for fundamental or tax warranties. In my view, regulatory compliance warranties should be classified as fundamental warranties in any Nigerian M&A transaction, precisely because the consequences of a CBN compliance breach can be so severe.
The CBN’s enforcement toolkit includes administrative sanctions (fines, directives, conditions on licences), revocation of banking licences in extreme cases, restrictions on foreign exchange access, and referral to law enforcement where fraud or money laundering is suspected. The CBN has not hesitated to revoke banking licences in recent years, and the threat of licence revocation is a powerful lever in any regulatory negotiation.
In my experience, the most effective approach is cooperative engagement. The CBN generally prefers to see voluntary remediation rather than to impose punitive sanctions, provided the investor demonstrates good faith, transparency and a credible remediation plan. Aggressive posturing or attempts to circumvent the regulatory process are counterproductive.
Litigation against the CBN itself, for example, seeking judicial review of an administrative decision, is possible through the Federal High Court, which has jurisdiction over matters arising from the operations of the CBN under the Constitution. However, this is a path of last resort. Judicial review proceedings are slow, expensive, and risk antagonising the regulator. In the vast majority of cases, negotiated remediation produces better outcomes than litigation.
Litigation or arbitration against the seller, on the other hand, is a different calculus. If the seller made warranties about regulatory compliance that were false, or failed to disclose known CBN issues, the buyer has strong grounds for a claim. A foreign company can sue in Nigeria, Nigerian courts have jurisdiction over contractual disputes with a Nigerian nexus, and foreign parties have standing to commence proceedings. Where the SPA provides for arbitration (frequently under ICC, LCIA or Lagos Court of Arbitration rules), that mechanism should be used.
If the seller is a foreign entity, enforcement of any Nigerian court judgment abroad will depend on the applicable reciprocal enforcement treaties or the common law rules of the enforcing jurisdiction. The enforceability of the judgment also depends on whether it is a money judgment as only such judgment. Arbitral awards are generally easier to enforce cross-border under the New York Convention, to which Nigeria is a signatory. This is one reason I consistently advise clients to include arbitration clauses in Nigerian M&A agreements.
The table below summarises the key regulatory filings and typical remediation timelines by entity type. These timelines are indicative and can be affected by the complexity of the gap, the CBN’s current workload, and the quality of the remediation submission.
| Entity Type | Key CBN / Regulatory Filing or Requirement | Typical Timeline to Regularise (Post-Close Discovery) |
|---|---|---|
| Deposit Money Bank (DMB) | CBN prior approval for change of control; foreign shareholding filings; FX repatriation reporting | 30–90 days (approval process may be extended at CBN discretion) |
| Non-bank financial institution (e.g., payment service provider) | CBN licence notifications; updated BO/KYC filings | 14–60 days depending on licence class |
| Private limited company (non-financial) | Foreign investment registration via authorised dealer; CAC filings for share transfers | 7–30 days for filings |
| Public company / listed target | SEC disclosure; Nigerian Exchange market notices; CBN filings if banking or FX issues are implicated | 7–90 days (market disclosures expected immediately; regulatory remedies follow) |
The following timeline illustrates the typical progression of a post-discovery remediation effort:
Prevention is always less costly than remediation. In every Nigerian M&A transaction I advise on, the regulatory due diligence workstream should, amongst other things, specifically address:
Where CBN prior approval is required, for example, in banking acquisitions, the application should be submitted and approval obtained before closing. If timing constraints make this impractical, the SPA should include a condition precedent requiring CBN approval, with a long-stop date and appropriate break-fee mechanics.
The seller’s warranties should include, at minimum:
At Dentons ACAS-Law, we typically recommend that these warranties be classified as fundamental warranties with an extended claim period, reflecting the severity of the regulatory risk.
For specialist advice on this topic, contact Dr. Sanford U. Mba at Dentons ACAS-Law.
posted 15 minutes ago
posted 22 minutes ago
posted 40 minutes ago
posted 58 minutes ago
posted 1 hour ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
No results available
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Send welcome message