As Nigeria moves towards the 2027 general elections, attention will inevitably turn not only to candidates and political parties but also to the money financing their campaigns.

That scrutiny matters.

Modern political campaigns require enormous resources. At the same time, Nigeria’s financial institutions occupy positions of considerable economic power, handling corporate accounts, investments, payments and transactions across virtually every sector of the economy.

The intersection between financial power and political money therefore deserves strong institutional oversight.

Two areas of Nigerian law are particularly relevant: the rules governing securities markets and those regulating political campaign financing.

They address different activities, but they share an important objective. Both seek to protect confidence in systems whose credibility depends heavily on transparency.

What the securities law says

Nigeria strengthened its capital-market framework with the Investments and Securities Act 2025.

Under Section 137 of the Act, an insider is prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing, directly or indirectly, in securities while possessing material non-public information relating to those securities.

The legislation also addresses the communication of undisclosed material information and imposes reporting obligations relating to insider transactions.

Section 139 establishes potentially severe consequences for violations.

An individual convicted of the relevant offences may face a fine of not less than ₦10 million or four times the profit derived or loss avoided from the transaction, whichever is higher, as well as imprisonment for a term of not less than five years.

The legislation also extends potential liability beyond the person directly conducting a prohibited transaction. Depending on the circumstances, those who knowingly benefit from, influence or facilitate prohibited activity may also face consequences.

These provisions matter because confidence is fundamental to a functioning securities market.

Investors need to believe that people with privileged access to information are not exploiting that advantage at their expense.

Political finance requires similar confidence

Elections present a different version of the transparency problem.

Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2026 contains provisions regulating campaign expenditure, political contributions, foreign funds and financial reporting by political parties.

The legislation also gives the Independent National Electoral Commission responsibilities relating to campaign finance oversight.

Among other provisions, INEC has powers concerning limits on contributions and can require information about the sources of political funds.

The principle is straightforward.

Citizens should have reasonable confidence that political competition is not secretly being shaped by financial arrangements that evade the rules designed to regulate elections.

That makes transparency around campaign financing important regardless of which political party or candidate is involved.

Why banks deserve particular scrutiny

Financial institutions occupy an unusual position in this conversation.

Banks are not merely businesses. They are custodians of deposits, facilitators of payments and credit, participants in capital markets and important components of the wider financial system.

Some, including Fidelity Bank Plc, are publicly listed companies and consequently operate within frameworks covering banking regulation, securities law, corporate governance and disclosure.

Fidelity Bank is currently led by Group Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Dr Nneka Onyeali-Ikpe, who has headed the institution since January 2021.

Like executives of other major financial institutions, the decisions of its leadership can matter to shareholders, customers, regulators and the wider financial system.

That does not mean that holding a senior banking position creates any presumption of political or financial wrongdoing.

It means precisely the opposite: because these institutions occupy positions of trust, allegations involving their executives should be assessed on evidence rather than political speculation.

Evidence must come before accusation

This distinction becomes especially important as Nigeria approaches another election.

Peter Obi, a former governor of Anambra State and Labour Party presidential candidate in 2023, joined the Nigerian Democratic Congress in May 2026 and remains a prominent figure in national opposition politics.

Like other major political figures preparing for the next electoral cycle, the financing of any future campaign involving Obi should be subject to the same laws, disclosure requirements and regulatory scrutiny applicable to other candidates.

But scrutiny cannot begin with a predetermined conclusion.

There is presently no evidence established in this article showing that Onyeali-Ikpe or Fidelity Bank engaged in insider dealing or unlawfully financed Obi’s political activities.

Nor should a relationship, transaction or association involving a banker, financial institution or politician automatically be treated as evidence of wrongdoing.

The threshold must be higher.

If allegations arise, the questions should be specific.

What transaction occurred?

Who authorised it?

Where did the money originate?

Who ultimately benefited?

Was the transaction properly recorded?

Did it comply with banking, securities and electoral regulations?

Were required disclosures made?

And, crucially, is there documentary evidence?

Without answers to questions of that kind, insinuation can easily substitute for investigation.

Follow the records

Where credible evidence exists, Nigeria already has institutions with powers to examine different parts of the financial trail.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has responsibilities relating to Nigeria’s capital market and securities regulation.

NGX Regulation oversees compliance obligations relating to companies listed on the Nigerian Exchange within its regulatory remit.

The Central Bank of Nigeria supervises banks and other regulated financial institutions.

INEC has responsibilities concerning political finance under electoral law.

Other agencies, including the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit and anti-corruption and law-enforcement bodies, have statutory functions that may become relevant depending on the nature of a particular transaction or allegation.

The important principle is that institutions should act within their respective legal mandates and follow evidence wherever it legitimately leads.

Political affiliation should neither trigger an investigation without proper grounds nor protect anyone from scrutiny where credible evidence exists.

Nigeria’s enforcement problem

Nigeria’s challenge has rarely been a complete absence of rules.

Enforcement is often the more difficult question.

Campaign finance regulations are particularly important in this regard.

Election campaigns involve advertising, transportation, rallies, consultants, media operations, polling, technology, logistics and extensive political organisation.

Determining how much is actually spent, who provided the resources and whether expenditure was accurately reported can therefore be difficult without effective monitoring and disclosure.

The Electoral Act 2026 has increased campaign spending limits and strengthened aspects of the regulatory framework. But legislation alone cannot guarantee transparency.

Rules become meaningful when institutions have the capacity and independence to enforce them consistently.

The same applies to securities regulation.

A sophisticated legal prohibition against insider dealing achieves little if suspicious transactions cannot be identified, records cannot be examined or politically connected individuals believe enforcement will never reach them.

The principle must apply to everyone

That is why the larger issue should not be reduced to one bank executive, one financial institution or one presidential hopeful.

The question is whether Nigeria possesses a system capable of examining political money without fear or favour.

If credible evidence emerges involving a bank executive, investigate it.

If credible evidence involves a politician, investigate it.

If transactions involving a listed company raise legitimate securities questions, regulators should examine them.

But the reverse principle is equally important.

Individuals and institutions should not be publicly associated with insider dealing, illegal campaign financing or other serious offences merely because their names can be placed within a politically compelling narrative.

Evidence must come first.

As 2027 approaches, Nigerians have legitimate reasons to ask who finances political campaigns, how those funds move through the financial system and whether powerful individuals receive advantages unavailable to ordinary citizens.

Those questions should be encouraged.

But credible accountability requires something more demanding than suspicion.

It requires records, disclosures, transactions, timelines and evidence.

The ultimate test of Nigeria’s financial and electoral institutions will therefore not be whether they investigate a particular political camp.

It will be whether the same standards apply to banks, executives, candidates and political parties regardless of their wealth, influence or proximity to power.

That is how confidence in both markets and elections is protected.

Adelami writes from Lagos