For too long, Nigeria has acted as if economic decisions happen in a vacuum, driven only by markets and private calculus. That view is outdated. Every major investment, listing, and cross-border deal sits at the intersection of economics and politics. This is the core of political economics: markets do not operate outside of power, regulation, and national interest.
If Nigeria wants a functional socioeconomic system, our regulators must stop pretending otherwise. Two current cases prove it: OPay’s planned NYSE listing and MTN Nigeria’s sale of its fintech subsidiaries to MTN Group.
OPay and the Case for a Dual Listing
OPay is a Nigerian-rooted fintech built on Nigerian users, USSD infrastructure, CBN licenses, and the trust of millions of unbanked Nigerians. Yet it is preparing to list solely on the New York Stock Exchange, bypassing the Nigerian Exchange Limited entirely.
For OPay, this makes commercial sense. The NYSE offers deeper capital pools and higher valuations. For Nigeria, it is a loss. We lose capital market depth, tax revenue, and local ownership of a strategic asset built on Nigerian data and infrastructure. Worse, it signals to every other startup that Nigeria is a place to build, not a place to list.
The state is not a neutral referee. It can use regulatory leverage to ensure national interest is factored in. Nigeria does not need to block the NYSE listing or force HQ relocation. It should make clear that continued access to CBN licenses, USSD rails, and national data systems comes with an expectation: a dual listing or a firm commitment to list on NGX within 3-5 years.
Pair this with incentives — tax relief, reduced fees, a tech-friendly board on NGX — and you create a path that serves both firm and country. This is how India, China, and the US manage strategic firms. It is not coercion. It is good order.
MTN Nigeria and the Leverage of Regulatory Approval
The second case is MTN Nigeria’s plan to sell a 60% stake in its fintech subsidiaries to MTN Group. The deal requires regulatory approval in Nigeria.
Meanwhile, xenophobic attacks on Nigerians in South Africa persist. Many victims are legal migrants engaged in legitimate business. The South African government has a duty to protect them. Where it fails, Nigeria cannot act as if nothing has changed.
Nigeria allows MTN to operate profitably and repatriate earnings. That access is a privilege, not a right. There is nothing improper about using the approval process for this sale as leverage to push Pretoria to act. Delaying or attaching conditions would signal that Nigerian market access carries reciprocal responsibility.
This is not about nationalizing MTN or driving out South African investment. It is about reciprocity. Nigeria did the same in 1979 when it acquired BP’s stake in Shell-BP in retaliation for Britain selling crude to apartheid South Africa.
The Line Nigeria Must Walk
Intervene enough to protect national interest, but not so much that you destroy investor confidence. For OPay, that means anchoring a Nigerian success story in Nigerian capital markets. For MTN, it means using regulatory approval to protect Nigerians abroad.
Right now, the government appears passive on both fronts. That is a mistake. Markets do not correct themselves on capital flight, data sovereignty, or citizen protection. Political intervention is required.
Nigeria’s position should be clear: dual listing for OPay, conditional approval for MTN. Anything less is a surrender of economic and political agency.
