By Bashir Ibrahim Hassan
The appearance of Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) at the public hearing organised by Senate Committee on Banking, Insurance and other Financial Institutions to defend its quest for amendments of its 2006 Act last March has ignited a debate on the pros and cons of the proposed amendment. The debate is welcome in a democratic set up like ours, in that it afforded the Nigerian public the opportunity to know what the amendments were meant to achieve. It is remarkable that the media are playing a very crucial role in providing the public platform to air these relevant arguments.
However, lately, some members of the anti-amendment camps are increasingly employing lots of spins in their narratives that smack of desperation. And, unfortunately, some media are being employed to – unwittingly — advance their evidently unhelpful sophistries.
For example, the editorials published on Monday, March 30 editions of The Punch (“NDIC law’s contentious amendment”) and the Sunday April 26, 2015 edition of Leadership (‘’CBN, NDIC as Sector Regulators’)’ as well as an opinion article published in the Monday, April 27, 2015 edition of Nigerian Tribune (‘’Change’’ that set CBN, NDIC on war path’’) were quite misleading. These publications conveyed information that stands the truth on its head, and clearly aimed to misinform the unsuspecting public. Only desperation will lead to such open “yarn spinning”. And one is inclined to ask the question: who is/are afraid of the amendments NDIC is seeking? These are amendments that seek to strengthen the legal framework NDIC urgently needs to adequately protect the depositors of our banks, primary mortgage banks and microfinance institutions.
The issues that compel amendments to the Act are already in the public domain, but since not all members of the public will have the time or access to these amendments some people quickly cash on these weakness to dish out propaganda and twist facts. Therefore, those who believe that depositors need the kind of protection NDIC is proposing have the responsibility to refute the claims and set the facts straight.
Before addressing the misinformation, a brief background on the NDIC is necessary to set the argument in perspective.
It is a known fact that the Corporation was established by the NDIC Decree No. 22 of 1988 (now NDIC Act No. 16 of 2006). Since it commenced operations in 1989, the Corporation has been discharging its mandate creditably in the areas of Deposit Guarantee, Bank Supervision, Failure Resolution and Bank Liquidation.
However, the NDIC has been handicapped in the effective discharge of its mandate by a lack of enforcement powers. For example, major challenges arise from its inability to effect payout when there is a bank liquidation. Consequently, the NDIC presented proposed amendments to its enabling law before the National Assembly to strengthen its capacity to effectively discharge its mandate. The proposed amendments are in line with the International Association of Deposit Insurers’ (IADI) core principles of effective deposit insurance. It is instructive to note that the Corporation has not made any new proposal on its functions or powers but has simply re-echoed what has been its mandate and powers since its inception in 1988. Its concern is to ensure safety, soundness and stability in the banking system.
Now let us look at some of the areas of misconceptions in the various publications to the proposed amendments as follows:
Power to license banks
On the issue of power to issue licences to banks, the publications allege that “the Corporation is requesting that applicants for banking licences should simultaneously submit to the CBN and NDIC their applications for licences to enable the Corporation determine whether or not it will grant Deposit Insurance Status to the bank if and when licensed”.
However, the proposed amendments contain no such proposal. The power to licence banks in Nigeria is strictly within the purview of the Central Bank. However, the Corporation has observed that banks, particularly microfinance banks (MFBs) and primary mortgage banks (PMBs), have closed shop shortly after being licensed and that some of them whose licences were revoked by the CBN could not even be located at their last known addresses after taking away depositors’ funds. Even the promoters could not be traced by both the NDIC and CBN. In practice, therefore, the Corporation is desirous of being involved in the process of licensing the banks, particularly in the area of carrying out “fit and proper persons test” in order to forestall the reoccurrence of events where promoters disappeared with depositors’money.
Power to supervise banks
On the power to supervise banks by the Corporation without reference to the CBN, the Corporation is portrayed as having requested that “the banks be shared between both organisations with each party able to exercise regulatory and supervisory powers over its ‘’ share’’ without reference to the other”. As a matter of fact, again, there is no such proposal in the amendments proposed by NDIC – indeed, there was no need for such a proposal. It should be noted that the existing provisions in the NDIC Act, 2006 gave the Corporation powers in Sections 27-31 to examine banks and issue reports and such reports were exchanged between the two institutions. Such was the practice until the assumption of office by the immediate past CBN Governor, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi in 2009, who requested that the NDIC and CBN should jointly examine banks and issue joint reports. However, the NDIC was of the view that it should revert to the status quo to maintain its operational independence. And what’s meaning of its operational independence if it must issue joint report?
Power to terminate licences of banks
On the power to terminate the insurance status of banks, one of the publications also alleges that “the Corporation seeks power to terminate the deposit insurance status of a bank with a mere notification to the CBN”. The reality is that the power to terminate the insurance status of any licensed bank has been in NDIC’s Act since 1988 and is therefore not a new proposal. However, due to the observation by the CBN with respect to this clause, the Corporation decided to amend that section from ‘’Notification’’ to ‘’Consultations’’ whenever such need arises.
Power to appoint Self as Liquidator
On the power to appoint itself as Liquidator, one of the publications alleges that “subsequent to the power to determine the licence of a bank as detailed above, the Corporation also seeks the power to appoint itself as liquidator of the same institution.” It is pertinent to note that both the CBN and NDIC share responsibility for failure resolution. However, with respect to the appointment of the NDIC as liquidator, it was agreed between the CBN and NDIC that the provision be inserted to cater for situations where insured institutions, such as primary mortgage banks (PMBs) and microfinance banks (MFBs), would have closed shop for long periods and the CBN had not revoked their licences of insured institutions.
[pro_ad_display_adzone id=”70560″]
Although the provision on appointment of NDIC as Provisional Liquidator had already been tested with the revocation of the operating licences of some MFBs, its effectiveness was very much in doubt, given the experience with the cases of the defunct Fortune and Triumph banks. It would be recalled that the NDIC was appointed provisional liquidator for both banks since 2006 but, nine years later, the NDIC has not been able to carry out liquidation activities, such as the realisation of the closed banks’ assets and subsequent payment of liquidation dividends to the uninsured depositors of the banks involved. That was despite the status of the NDIC as a provisional liquidator of the banks. It is in this regard that the proposed amendment provided for the appointment of the NDIC as Liquidator simpli cita in order to ensure effective winding-up of the affairs of failed insured institutions.
Curiously the anti-amendment camp and their mouthpieces are not mentioning the following depositor-focus amendment proposals, which will amount to crass naivety to oppose.
The proposed amendments would enable the NDIC to pay insured deposits,irrespective of such an application pending in court, as payment of insured deposits would be statutorily obligatory. The equitable doctrine of lis pendis would not operate in the face of statutory provisions compelling NDIC to effect such payment. In the event that the licence of the institution is restored, the NDIC would exercise its right of subrogation.
v)Reduction of Pay-out period (Depositors’ Re-imbursement) from 90 days to 30 days. The purpose of this amendment is to guarantee prompt settlement of depositors’ insured sum by reducing the waiting period for payment from 90 days to 30 days. That means that the NDIC is seeking to commence the payment of insured deposits within 30 days.
I cannot see any iota of intent from the foregoing amendment that posits NDIC as seeking to be a parallel or coordinate regulator for banks. Rather these amendments are intended to strengthen the Corporation to play its role as a responsible member of the financial safety-net in Nigeria working with the CBN and other critical stakeholders to ensure the safety, stability and soundness of the financial system.
On a final note, one would like to appeal to the out-going 7th National Assembly to be on the side of history and Nigerian depositors by approving these novel and credible amendments that will keep Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation ahead of its peers.
*Hassan is business development executive based in Abuja