AFRICA continues to bleed capital at an alarming rate while simultaneously pleading for international aid. Estimates suggest that trillions of dollars in wealth generated from African resources and markets have flowed out of the continent into offshore accounts, often held by corporations, elites, and individuals who extract profits but reinvest minimally back home.
This paradox—rich in resources yet starved of capital for development—undermines infrastructure projects, education, healthcare, and job creation across the continent. African bankers and auditors evaluate risks daily in corporate and financial dealings, yet the overarching systemic risk of capital extraction remains largely unchallenged. True progress demands that African leaders transcend political rivalries, forge a united front, and demand the repatriation of these funds. Redirecting even a fraction of this capital could transform roads, schools, power grids, industries, and digital economies, fostering self-reliant growth.
Unity here is not merely political rhetoric; it is sound economics and a strategic imperative for the continent’s future.
In a candid mid-year media roundtable at the Afreximbank African Trade Centre (AATC) in Abuja, Dr. George Elombi, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank), engaged directly with journalists from the Nigerian Tribune and other outlets.
The conversation covered the bank’s recent S&P investment-grade rating upgrade, critiques of global rating agencies, advancements in continental payment systems like PAPSS, the Africa Medical Centre of Excellence, and strategies to deepen intra-African trade.
What unfolded was a robust defence of Afreximbank’s mandate, a powerful call for African perspectives on risk assessment, and measured optimism grounded in concrete achievements. CHIMA NWOKOJI brings excerpts, highlighting the bank’s vision and the broader continental challenges.
The Pan-African Payment Settlement System (PAPSS) has been operational since 2022. Are you satisfied with its pace of adoption ?
Adoption has been slower than hoped, primarily due to initial central bank concerns about regulatory overlap. Yet, PAPSS is functional and essential. You can’t build intra-African trade without a payment mechanism any more than you can move goods without ports or pipelines. PAPSS now connects over 190 commercial banks and fintechs across 28 countries. That’s a lot of progress, but modest compared to the roughly 600 banks Afreximbank engages. Growth requires broader ecosystem participation. Complementary products like the African Marketplace enable currency swaps (e.g., Kenyan shillings for Angolan kwanza holdings), reducing pressure on national forex markets, and the forthcoming PAPSS card will facilitate seamless spending across borders.
Some call the PAPSS West African pilot a “hijack” by that sub-region. How do you respond to that?
The pilot was chosen objectively: the West African Monetary Union provided a foundation for testing multiple currencies and complexities. However, governing it primarily through affected central bank governors created perceptions of regional bias, delaying broader buy-in by about two years. Bringing in governors from other regions helped address this. Scaling now depends on central bank approvals and commercial bank onboarding, aligning with Afreximbank’s treaty obligations and the AU’s long-standing vision for a continental payment system.
There is widespread use of cryptocurrency in Africa with Nigeria leading in stablecoin adoption for cross-border payments, can the PAPSS compete?
Competition is not feared. Credible, asset-backed stablecoins can build trust, and Afreximbank is open to collaboration. However, as long as national currencies persist, the need for efficient cross-currency settlement remains. PAPSS addresses this infrastructure gap. The long-term vision involves sub-regional systems consolidating into regional currencies, eventually a continental one, making African digital currencies more viable. Banking is about confidence.
Standard & Poor’s has restored Afreximbank to investment grade after more than a decade. Do you feel this rating is finally justified?
Yes and no. Shareholders were never unsettled by the earlier downgrade. Confidence remained intact because the bank continued lending aggressively—approving $700 million facilities when needed and signing a $2.5 billion deal with Dangote Group—demonstrating operational strength regardless of external labels. The rating upgrade merely caught up with reality. If you read the rating report itself, the underlying analysis points to something closer to single-A. It’s the notching for operating in what they call a ‘risky environment’ that pulls it down. The bank’s shareholders had long believed its standing was higher, and the upgrade affirmed what internal metrics and lending performance already showed.
Why did Afreximbank exit S&P’s rating process back in 2014?
The exit stemmed from a fundamental philosophical clash. At the time, S&P viewed a trade finance-focused institution as too small to drive meaningful development, questioning the very premise of building economies through trade. This directly contradicted Afreximbank’s founding treaty and mandate.
We couldn’t sit inside a rating built on the premise that our reason for existing was irrelevant, so we walked away. The bank maintained dialogue over the years. A change in S&P leadership eventually led to greater recognition that a trade-centric strategy could generate relevance and impact rather than marginality. The 2026 upgrade reflects this evolved understanding, transforming Afreximbank from perceived irrelevance in 2014 to a “counter-cyclical impact institution” too systemically important for African states to let fail.
You have been critical of how rating agencies assess African risk, particularly the “notching” practice. Can you elaborate?
There is a distinction between Afreximbank’s collateralised lending model and that of traditional multilaterals. Unlike institutions that lend to governments on a sovereign basis, Afreximbank secures 85-90 percent of its loans and investments against identifiable repayment sources. By standard metrics, this should yield a strong rating. However, agencies apply a “geography penalty”—notching the rating down (historically by three points, recently negotiated to two) simply because the collateral is in Africa. That’s a subjective adjustment, and it’s arbitrary enough that it can move between negotiations even though the underlying environment hasn’t changed. If the environment is risky, the risk level should be consistent, not fluctuating notch-by-notch. For instance , in grading student’s exam performance while penalising them for their neighborhood, family background, or lack of amenities are presumptions that ignore actual results. Africa’s default rates, do not justify being portrayed as the highest-risk continent in percentage or absolute terms. Media emphasis on governance failures over positive economic stories exacerbates this perception problem.
Does similar logic apply to assessments of Afreximbank’s liquidity?
The liquidity critique is particularly counterintuitive. Years ago, when roughly 80% of external borrowing came from Western markets, agencies rated the profile as strong. Afreximbank then diversified deliberately—building a central bank deposit program drawing from African and Asian sources to match shifting trade patterns toward Asia and to repatriate African capital. Today, Western dependence is down to around 12%, with significant portions from Africa (38%) and Asia (38%). Rather than rewarding diversification, some agencies viewed reduced Eurobond issuance as weakening liquidity. This occurred even as the bank held excess cash, having borrowed proactively ahead of anticipated crises to support member states’ letters of credit. Rating agencies rate individual aspects (capital, liquidity, loan portfolio, management) on scales from very high to weak, then weight them. Strong performance in collateralised assets and capital can be undermined by the African “risky environment” overlay, resulting in double jeopardy. There should be greater transparency in rating methodologies so the public can see the workings, not just final grades.
Critics point to exposures in sovereign debt restructurings like Ghana and Zambia as justification for rating caution. How do you respond?
Data, not perception, should guide assessments, Africa does not lead in loan defaults. There are challenges but Afreximbank’s shareholders increased deposits into the bank’s programs during difficult periods, affirming support. Member states continue meeting capital calls, and the bank’s private-sector focus alongside collateralized lending mitigates risks. The broader issue is narrative. The perception problem is compounded by how the continent’s own media covers itself—we spend a lot of energy highlighting governance failures and very little showing the positive side. Balanced reporting could help shift how external analysts price risk.
How serious is the proposal for an African-run credit rating agency?
Very serious. The African Peer Review Mechanism of the African Union has taken the lead, with Afreximbank providing moral support. Every other region has home-grown agencies; Africa should too. Rating does not require exotic expertise—experienced African bankers and auditors already assess corporate and financial risks daily. The value lies in context: understanding local operating environments rather than viewing them from afar. Institutions like Ecobank, Zenith, and Afreximbank, which lend almost exclusively within Africa, deserve analysts attuned to continental realities. The agency would operate privately for neutrality, with professionals running methodologies grounded in African data.
Africa is known for exporting of raw materials. What is your take on this?
African nations should stop the export of raw materials. For instance Lithium, the main raw material used in the production of electric vehicle (EV) batteries. Nigeria is a major exporter of Lithium in Africa, though most of the quantity is illegally exported. Africa must take its position in the EV industry. We have lithium. We should produce EV batteries at home. We simply have to produce them here. There is enough money in Africa to manufacture batteries in Africa. If you know anyone who is interested in EV battery production, bring them to me. But if you see someone looking for funding to export lithium, don’t bring them to me. African leaders and institutions must work together to ensure that African funds held outside the continent are repatriated to support the region’s development. Afreximbank has sufficient funds to finance the production of EV batteries and is ready to provide the necessary funding to any individual or organisation willing to venture into the industry. African mineral resources must work for Africa’s development. EVs are the future of transportation, and the use of lithium to produce EV batteries is taking centre stage in the EV industry.
What tangible outcomes are visible at the Africa Medical Centre of Excellence in Abuja, and what’s holding back faster scaling?
Scaling is constrained not by funding or equipment—some technology surpasses European standards—but by staffing. Recruiting African specialists established abroad requires phased approaches to ensure full departmental capability before publicizing services. A second center in Cameroon will replicate the model.
A $75 million endowment supports an African life sciences foundation focused initially on sickle cell disease. Research capacity is key: treating patients without studying responses means losing scientific insight and commercial value. A former Africa CDC director and Nigerian medical professors lead this effort.
