Nigeria Wants to Build Africa’s Wall Street: Can African Depositary Receipts Finally Unlock the Continent’s Trapped Capital?

Nigeria’s proposed African Depositary Receipts framework could make it easier for investors in Lagos to buy into companies operating in Nairobi, Johannesburg or Accra without navigating an entirely separate investment process. But the real test is whether Africa can overcome the regulatory fragmentation, currency risks and weak cross-border infrastructure that have kept much of its capital inside national borders.

Africa does not lack entrepreneurs, profitable businesses or people who want to invest. What it lacks is a sufficiently integrated financial system capable of connecting those resources across the continent.

A company in Ghana seeking expansion capital may find it easier to approach investors in London than to raise money from pension funds and retail investors in Nigeria. A Kenyan investor interested in a Nigerian industrial company may face different securities regulations, brokerage arrangements, custody requirements, currency-conversion costs and settlement procedures before purchasing its shares.

Meanwhile, African companies frequently seek financing from international markets, even when investors with capital to deploy exist elsewhere on the continent.

This is the structural problem Nigeria is attempting to address.

On October 22, 2026, TheCable reported that Nigeria’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had proposed an African Depositary Receipts framework as part of the Nigerian Capital Market Masterplan 2.0, a ten-year programme running from 2026 to 2036. The proposal is intended to encourage companies from other African countries to access Nigeria’s capital market without immediately undertaking a full secondary listing. <Cite refs={["turn503969news6","turn503969search2"]}/>

The proposed framework would feature streamlined regulatory approvals, introductory listing-fee incentives, cross-border custody and settlement arrangements, and tax neutrality. It would also establish a pathway for participating companies to progress from issuing depositary receipts to obtaining full secondary listings on a Nigerian exchange. <Cite refs={["turn503969news6","turn503969search0"]}/>

The ambition extends beyond introducing another financial instrument. Nigeria wants to attract more African companies, expand the investment opportunities available to Nigerian investors and strengthen Lagos's position as a financial centre serving a wider regional market.

If implemented effectively, the framework could help connect businesses seeking capital with investors whose money is currently concentrated in domestic assets.

But the initiative also raises a difficult question: can Nigeria help build a genuinely integrated African capital market, or will the continent continue to operate as a collection of disconnected exchanges?

The answer will depend less on the announcement itself than on the practical arrangements that follow.

1. What exactly are African Depositary Receipts?

To understand the proposal, it is important to understand the financial instrument at its centre.

A depositary receipt is a negotiable financial instrument representing an ownership interest in securities held through a depositary and custodian arrangement. It allows investors to obtain economic exposure to a company whose underlying shares are issued or held in another market.

For example, imagine a successful Kenyan manufacturing company that is listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange. The company wants to attract investment from Nigeria but does not want to undertake the cost and administrative burden of a full secondary listing on the Nigerian Exchange.

Under a suitably designed African Depositary Receipts framework, a Nigerian investor could purchase a receipt traded in Nigeria that represents an interest in the Kenyan company's underlying shares.

The investor would gain exposure to the company's economic performance through the receipt, subject to its terms and the applicable regulations. The underlying shares would be held through an approved custody arrangement.

The Nigerian investor would not necessarily need to open a brokerage account in Kenya or independently navigate the Kenyan exchange's trading procedures.

Instead, the local market would provide a regulated route to investing in the foreign company.

The proposed framework would need to establish how the receipts are issued, who holds the underlying securities, how investors receive dividends, how voting rights are exercised, how transactions are settled and what happens if the underlying shares are suspended or the issuer experiences financial distress.

These are not minor technical details. They determine whether the instrument offers investors a reliable ownership interest or merely a complicated claim that is difficult to enforce.

It is also important to distinguish African Depositary Receipts from American Depositary Receipts, which use a similar financial structure to enable investors in the United States to obtain exposure to foreign companies. The proposed African framework would be designed around African issuers, exchanges, regulators and investors.

The underlying concept is established in international finance. The challenge is adapting it to a continent where securities regulations, currencies, settlement systems and investor-protection arrangements differ significantly between jurisdictions.

2. Why Africa needs a more integrated capital market

Africa's financial markets remain fragmented along national and regional boundaries.

The continent has numerous stock exchanges, but they differ considerably in size, liquidity, listed companies, regulatory arrangements and access to international capital.

Some markets have relatively developed institutional investor bases and established trading infrastructure. Others have fewer listed companies, limited trading volumes and a narrower range of investment products.

Even where companies operate across several African countries, their shares may remain primarily accessible through a single domestic exchange.

This creates an economic mismatch.

African businesses increasingly operate in regional markets. Banks lend across borders, telecommunications companies serve multiple countries, manufacturers distribute products internationally and digital businesses seek customers across the continent.

Yet the capital markets financing those businesses have not developed to the same degree of regional integration.

A company may have customers in five countries but depend heavily on investors in only one.

An investor may understand a neighbouring country's economy and see opportunities in its businesses but find the process of purchasing its securities too cumbersome or expensive.

The result is a market in which potentially productive investment opportunities and available capital do not always connect efficiently.

A regional depositary-receipts framework could help reduce this mismatch by creating a familiar investment route through domestic financial institutions.

Instead of requiring every investor to master the legal and operational arrangements of a foreign exchange, participating markets could establish a coordinated system for accessing eligible foreign securities.

The potential benefits extend beyond convenience.

A broader investor base can improve the prospects of raising capital, diversify the ownership of companies and create more opportunities for institutional and individual investors to participate in businesses outside their home markets.

However, those benefits are not automatic. A receipt listed in Lagos will attract meaningful demand only if investors trust the underlying company, believe the valuation is reasonable and can trade the instrument without excessive costs.

Financial integration is ultimately about making cross-border investment commercially useful, not merely legally possible.

3. Why Nigeria wants to become a regional financial hub

Nigeria has several characteristics that make the ambition understandable.

It has one of Africa's largest populations, a substantial banking industry, an established securities regulator, an organised stock exchange and a broad range of businesses operating in financial services, consumer goods, telecommunications, manufacturing and energy.

Its domestic economy creates potential demand for investment products, while Nigerian pension funds, asset managers, banks and individual investors provide channels through which capital can be mobilised.

Nigeria's capital market could become more useful to African companies if it offered access not only to Nigerian investors but also to a broader network of regional and international capital.

For a company based in another African country, a Nigerian listing or depositary-receipt issuance could provide an additional source of financing and improve its visibility among Nigerian investors.

For Nigeria, attracting foreign issuers could increase trading activity, broaden the range of listed securities and deepen relationships between its financial institutions and their counterparts elsewhere in Africa.

It could also support related professional services, including investment banking, auditing, legal advice, securities custody, research and asset management.

These are the kinds of activities that help sustain a financial centre.

But a large domestic economy does not automatically make a country a regional financial hub.

Investors compare markets on the basis of liquidity, transaction costs, regulatory certainty, currency stability, ease of moving money, disclosure quality and the reliability of the institutions responsible for protecting their assets.

A company will not necessarily list in Lagos simply because Nigeria has a large population. It will consider whether the listing offers access to investors who can provide capital at an acceptable cost.

Likewise, an investor in Accra or Nairobi will not automatically choose a Nigerian market if the transaction is difficult to settle or the proceeds cannot be converted and transferred predictably.

Nigeria's competitive position will therefore depend on the quality of its financial infrastructure and the credibility of its regulatory arrangements.

The depositary-receipts proposal is one component of that larger task.

4. The timing matters: Africa's biggest industrial investments need broader capital pools

The proposal comes as major African businesses seek financing on a scale that challenges the traditional boundaries of national stock markets.

One prominent example is the planned public offering of Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals in Nigeria.

The proposed offering has drawn attention to the possibility of allowing investors from other African countries to participate in a major industrial asset listed in Nigeria.

Reuters reported on October 9, 2026, that the refinery's approximately $1.6 billion offering exposed significant barriers to cross-border investment. Despite interest from investors in countries including Kenya and Botswana, the offering was registered publicly in Nigeria, leaving investors elsewhere to navigate different national rules and a limited number of authorised intermediaries. <Cite refs={["turn503969news10"]}/>

The experience illustrates a fundamental problem.

Africa can produce companies large enough to attract investors across the continent, yet those investors may struggle to participate because the infrastructure connecting the markets is incomplete.

The Dangote case also demonstrates why cross-border integration is not simply a theoretical ambition for policymakers.

Large industrial projects require substantial financing. Their ownership structures and capital needs may extend beyond what any single domestic market can comfortably supply.

Connecting investors from several countries can potentially broaden the pool of available capital.

In October 2026, Kenya's capital markets regulator also approved a Global Depositary Receipt route for eligible local investors seeking exposure to the Dangote refinery's offering, illustrating how depositary instruments can help bridge national markets. <Cite refs={["turn503969news12","turn503969news15"]}/>

This is an important distinction: the Kenyan approval relates to a specific transaction and does not mean that a comprehensive African Depositary Receipts framework is already operational.

Nevertheless, the experience provides a practical illustration of the problem Nigeria's proposed framework is intended to address.

If comparable arrangements become more standardised, companies could find it easier to access investors in multiple African markets without having to negotiate a completely different process for every transaction.

That would not remove the need for investor protection or local regulatory oversight. It could, however, reduce unnecessary duplication.

5. The proposed framework is part of a much larger reform programme

The African Depositary Receipts proposal is contained in Nigeria's Capital Market Masterplan 2.0, a ten-year strategy covering 2026 to 2036.

The masterplan was launched on October 19, 2026, by the Nigerian government, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and FSD Africa among the institutions involved in its development. It aims to deepen capital markets, mobilise domestic and international investment and strengthen Nigeria's position as a regional financial hub. <Cite refs={["turn503969search2"]}/>

The broader programme includes initiatives intended to expand participation in investment markets, increase the range of companies able to raise capital and improve access to financial instruments.

The plan also sets ambitions to increase collective investment scheme assets under management from approximately $5.6 billion to $56 billion over ten years and raise annual diaspora investment channelled into capital markets from $4 billion to $10 billion. These are policy targets, not achieved results. <Cite refs={["turn503969search2"]}/>

The proposed depositary-receipts framework fits into this agenda because cross-border investment can help widen the range of assets available to domestic investors.

It could also make Nigerian capital more accessible to foreign companies, creating a two-way relationship between the domestic market and the wider African economy.

But the initiative will need to work alongside other reforms.

Depositary receipts cannot independently solve weaknesses in settlement systems, foreign-exchange markets, corporate disclosure, investor confidence or the availability of reliable market data.

Nor can they guarantee that more capital will flow into productive businesses.

The wider masterplan will need to create the conditions under which companies want to list, investors want to participate and financial intermediaries can process transactions efficiently.

The distinction between a policy framework and an operational market is critical.

A successful programme will be measured by completed transactions, capital raised, investor participation and sustained trading activity, not by the number of policy documents published.

6. How the framework could work in practice

For the proposal to become commercially useful, several components must operate together.

A. A clear process for foreign companies

A company based in Ghana, Kenya, South Africa or another participating country should be able to understand what it must do to issue depositary receipts in Nigeria.

The process would need clear eligibility criteria, disclosure requirements, fees, application timelines and ongoing reporting obligations.

The Nigerian SEC would also need to determine when it could rely on the work of another regulator and when additional review would be necessary.

A company already subject to credible supervision in its home market should not automatically have to repeat every regulatory process from the beginning. However, relying on another regulator must not mean abandoning essential investor safeguards.

B. Reliable custody of the underlying shares

The underlying securities must be held securely through an approved custodian or depositary structure.

Investors need clarity about the legal relationship between the receipt and the shares it represents.

They must also understand what happens if an intermediary fails, a custodian becomes insolvent or a dispute arises over ownership.

Cross-border custody arrangements require enforceable legal agreements and clear procedures for reconciling securities across markets.

C. Efficient settlement

When an investor purchases a receipt in Nigeria, the transaction must be reflected correctly in the relevant securities and cash systems.

The market must be able to reconcile receipts with the underlying shares, manage corporate actions and prevent discrepancies between what investors own and what is held in custody.

A well-designed system should reduce unnecessary manual processing and settlement delays.

It should also establish clear procedures for handling failed transactions, market disruptions and differences between trading calendars.

D. Predictable currency arrangements

Currency is one of the most important practical challenges.

A Nigerian investor buying exposure to a Kenyan or Ghanaian company may earn returns that are affected by movements in the naira, the Kenyan shilling or the Ghanaian cedi.

The framework must explain how purchase payments, dividends, sale proceeds and any currency conversions will be handled.

It should also clarify the tax treatment of distributions and capital gains, including the interaction between relevant national tax systems.

Without predictable arrangements for converting and transferring funds, the receipts could remain difficult to use regardless of how straightforward the listing process becomes.

E. A route to full secondary listing

The proposed framework would include a pathway through which a company could progress from issuing depositary receipts to a full secondary listing in Nigeria. <Cite refs={["turn503969news6"]}/>

This could allow a company to enter the Nigerian market gradually, establish investor demand and evaluate the commercial benefits of a more extensive listing.

However, a transition should not be automatic. A full secondary listing may require additional disclosure, compliance arrangements and a demonstrated capacity to meet the relevant exchange's requirements.

The objective should be to make expansion easier without compromising market integrity.

7. Why liquidity matters more than the number of listings

One of the biggest risks is that Nigeria could attract additional issuers without creating a market in which investors can trade their securities efficiently.

A company can be listed on an exchange and still experience very low trading volumes.

If few investors are willing to buy or sell its shares, investors may struggle to enter or exit positions at reasonable prices.

This is especially important for foreign issuers whose businesses may be less familiar to Nigerian investors.

A depositary-receipts programme could increase the number of available securities while leaving the underlying problem of limited liquidity unresolved.

The solution requires a broader ecosystem.

Brokerage firms must be willing and able to trade the instruments. Asset managers need access to credible research. Custodians and settlement institutions must support the transactions. Investors must understand the risks and have confidence in the available information.

The exchange must also ensure that the trading arrangements produce reliable price discovery.

A successful framework should therefore measure more than the number of receipts issued.

It should track:

• The amount of new capital raised by participating companies.
• The number of active issuers and participating markets.
• The value and frequency of trading.
• The number and diversity of investors participating.
• The time required to approve and settle transactions.
• The cost of trading, custody and currency conversion.
• The number of failed settlements and investor complaints.

These measures would reveal whether the framework is making cross-border investment more accessible in practice.

Without them, the programme could produce impressive announcements without delivering a meaningful improvement in capital formation.

8. The currency problem: a regional market needs more than a common trading platform

Africa's currency arrangements present a major obstacle to deeper financial integration.

The continent has numerous national currencies, different exchange-rate regimes and varying levels of access to foreign exchange.

An investor buying a foreign security must consider not only the company's performance but also the currencies in which its shares, dividends and eventual sale proceeds are valued.

Suppose a Nigerian investor purchases a receipt representing shares in a Kenyan company.

Even if the Kenyan company increases its profits, the Nigerian investor's return measured in naira may be affected by movements in the exchange rate between the naira and the shilling.

The reverse is also true. A company with strong local-currency earnings may become more attractive to foreign investors if its currency strengthens, but less attractive if the currency depreciates.

These risks are not unique to African markets. They are common in international investment. The challenge is that currency-conversion costs, access to foreign exchange and cross-border transfer arrangements can be particularly important in markets where liquidity is uneven.

A credible depositary-receipts framework must therefore make currency exposure transparent.

Investors should know which currency determines the value of their underlying investment, how dividends will be converted and what costs may apply when money moves across borders.

The framework should not promise that investors can avoid currency risk. It should provide the information and infrastructure needed to manage it.

For Nigeria, improving the predictability of foreign-exchange arrangements would support the broader ambition of attracting regional investment.

A well-designed security cannot fully compensate for uncertainty about whether investors will be able to convert and repatriate their proceeds.

9. Tax neutrality is necessary, but it must be carefully designed

The proposed framework includes full tax neutrality as one of its intended features. <Cite refs={["turn503969news6"]}/>

The objective is understandable.

Investors should not face unnecessary additional taxation simply because they access a foreign company's shares through a depositary receipt rather than purchasing the underlying shares directly.

But tax neutrality must be defined carefully.

It does not necessarily mean that all taxes on the investment disappear. It should instead clarify how the receipt is treated relative to the underlying security, including the tax treatment of dividends, capital gains and any withholding obligations.

If a company pays dividends in its home country, investors may face withholding tax before the proceeds reach the depositary. The investor's own country may then apply additional tax rules, depending on the relevant legislation and any double-taxation agreement.

If the framework does not clarify these arrangements, investors may find it difficult to estimate their actual returns.

A credible approach would coordinate the treatment of receipts with existing tax laws, clarify the responsibilities of intermediaries and prevent avoidable layers of taxation.

At the same time, tax incentives should be transparent and proportionate. Governments must consider the public revenue implications and avoid creating unnecessary advantages for one class of investment over another.

The goal should be a predictable, coherent tax system that makes legitimate cross-border investment easier to evaluate.

10. Investor protection cannot become the price of regional integration

A regional capital market requires trust.

Investors must be confident that companies disclose material information, that financial statements are reliable, that trading rules are enforced and that they have meaningful remedies when things go wrong.

This is especially important when a company operates in one jurisdiction while its securities trade in another.

If a dispute arises, investors need to understand which regulator has jurisdiction, which laws apply and where they can seek redress.

The framework must also address market manipulation, insider trading, conflicts of interest and the risks associated with misleading corporate disclosures.

Regulatory cooperation can help, but it must be substantive rather than symbolic.

A Nigerian regulator may rely on information provided by a counterpart in another country, but that arrangement works only if the counterpart has the authority, expertise and capacity to supervise the issuer effectively.

There should also be procedures for sharing information, coordinating investigations and responding to serious breaches.

The objective is not to impose identical rules on every African market. Differences in market size and institutional capacity may justify different approaches.

The objective is to ensure that investors receive credible protection while unnecessary regulatory duplication is reduced.

That balance will determine whether the proposed framework attracts long-term investment or merely encourages short-term speculation.

11. Can Nigeria compete with Johannesburg and other African financial centres?

Nigeria is not the only country seeking to attract regional investment.

Johannesburg has an established financial-services industry and a developed securities market. Nairobi serves as an important financial centre in East Africa. Ghana and other markets also play roles in regional capital formation.

The proposed framework should therefore be understood as part of a wider competition to attract companies, investors and financial services.

But competition does not necessarily mean that one exchange must dominate the continent.

A more integrated market could allow different financial centres to specialise, serve different regions and connect investors across borders.

Nigeria could offer access to its large domestic investor base and companies seeking capital in West Africa. Johannesburg could contribute its established financial infrastructure and regional connections. Nairobi could help connect East African investors and issuers to broader markets.

The challenge is to make these systems complementary rather than isolated.

Nigeria's proposed regional integration strategy includes cooperation with the African Securities Exchanges Association, the African Exchanges Linkage Project, the West African regional exchange known as BRVM and the relevant regional market authorities. The masterplan also proposes a dedicated West African integration working group involving the SEC, NGX Group, FMDQ and the Central Securities Clearing System. <Cite refs={["turn503969news6","turn503969search0"]}/>

These arrangements could help coordinate regulatory processes, exchange access and settlement infrastructure.

However, a network of agreements will matter only if investors can use it easily.

A regional framework that requires investors to navigate multiple overlapping systems may simply reproduce the complexity it was intended to remove.

The long-term goal should be interoperability: the ability of different markets and institutions to work together through clear and dependable arrangements.

12. AfCFTA and the missing financial infrastructure of African trade

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is intended to expand trade and economic integration across the continent.

But trade integration requires more than reducing tariffs and simplifying customs procedures.

Businesses that trade across borders also need financing, payment systems, insurance, investment capital and mechanisms for managing risk.

A manufacturer expanding into another African country may need capital to establish distribution facilities, purchase equipment or build a new production line.

A logistics company serving several markets may need financing to expand its fleet and operational infrastructure.

A technology company may need investment to scale services across multiple countries.

If those businesses can access investors across the continent, they may have more options for financing expansion.

This is where the depositary-receipts proposal could complement AfCFTA.

Trade agreements can help create opportunities for businesses, while financial integration can help provide the capital required to exploit them.

However, securities-market integration and trade integration are distinct processes. AfCFTA does not automatically harmonise national securities laws or create a common stock exchange.

The proposed framework would need its own legal, regulatory and operational foundations.

It should also connect with existing African financial-integration initiatives rather than duplicating them.

The opportunity lies in coordinating these systems so that a company operating across several African countries can obtain capital from a wider pool of investors with less unnecessary friction.

That could help strengthen the relationship between African savings and African productive investment.

13. The role of pension funds and institutional investors

One of the most important potential sources of demand for African Depositary Receipts is institutional investment.

Pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds and asset managers control pools of capital that can be invested over long periods.

Their investment decisions are subject to regulatory limits, fiduciary responsibilities, risk-management requirements and internal investment policies.

A regional receipts framework could make it easier for these institutions to evaluate and access eligible companies outside their home markets.

But the existence of a new instrument does not automatically mean that institutional investors will purchase it.

They must assess the quality of the issuer, its governance, financial performance, valuation and liquidity.

They must also consider whether the investment complies with their mandates and the regulations governing their portfolios.

For Nigerian pension funds, broader access to African companies could potentially expand the range of investment opportunities. For African companies, access to institutional investors could provide a source of long-term capital beyond traditional bank lending.

Yet policymakers should avoid using regulation to force institutions into investments that do not meet their financial obligations or risk requirements.

The appropriate approach is to create credible investment opportunities and let qualified institutions assess them under clear rules.

The quality of the underlying companies will remain decisive.

14. The risk of turning regional integration into a competition for listing fees

Governments and exchanges often compete to attract listings by reducing fees and offering incentives.

The proposed Nigerian framework includes introductory listing-fee incentives and measures to reduce regulatory costs. <Cite refs={["turn503969news6"]}/>

Such measures can help companies test a new market without immediately assuming the full cost of a secondary listing.

However, incentives cannot substitute for the underlying benefits of a capital market.

A company may accept lower fees to list in Nigeria but still receive little investment if local investors are unfamiliar with its business or cannot trade its shares efficiently.

Similarly, a company may decide not to list if the expected capital raised does not justify the compliance and reporting costs.

The framework should therefore distinguish between attracting an issuer and attracting investment into that issuer.

Those are separate outcomes.

An effective programme could use time-limited incentives linked to measurable results, such as new capital raised, sustained trading activity or increased participation by investors.

It should also disclose the cost of the incentives and assess whether they produce benefits that justify the public or institutional resources involved.

The objective should be to create a market that companies want to use because it provides access to capital, not one that depends indefinitely on discounts.

15. What implementation should look like

Nigeria's proposal will need a clear implementation roadmap if it is to move beyond policy language.

The first priority should be publishing the operational rules.

Investors and issuers need to know the eligibility criteria, custody arrangements, settlement procedures, disclosure requirements, tax treatment and responsibilities of each participating institution.

The second priority should be selecting practical transactions through which the framework can be tested.

Initial issuances involving companies with strong disclosure practices, established operating histories and identifiable investor demand could help regulators and intermediaries identify problems before the programme expands.

The third priority should be building the infrastructure for cross-border custody and settlement.

The framework will need dependable links between exchanges, brokers, custodians and clearing institutions. These links should support reconciliation of underlying securities, corporate actions and payments.

The fourth priority should be coordination with other African regulators.

A depositary-receipts framework cannot operate as a genuinely regional system if every transaction requires completely separate negotiations with each jurisdiction.

Regulatory reliance and prospectus passporting could help reduce duplication where participating authorities recognise one another's processes. However, recognition should be based on clear standards and effective supervision, not automatic acceptance of every foreign filing.

The fifth priority should be measuring results publicly.

The SEC and participating institutions should report on the number of issuers, the amount of capital raised, transaction costs, trading activity, settlement performance and investor complaints.

These measures would help establish whether the programme is delivering meaningful market integration.

16. What success would mean for African businesses and investors

If the framework works as intended, a Nigerian investor could have a wider range of investment opportunities without having to navigate an entirely separate market for every purchase.

An African company could potentially reach investors in Nigeria without immediately committing to a full secondary listing.

A financial institution could develop products that provide exposure to businesses across several countries, subject to applicable regulations.

And a regional capital market could become more useful to companies seeking to finance expansion beyond their domestic economies.

These outcomes would not eliminate the risks of investing in shares. Companies could still fail, valuations could fall and currency movements could reduce returns.

Nor would the framework automatically increase the total amount of capital available to African businesses. Some investment could simply move from one asset or market to another.

The more meaningful test is whether the system helps capital reach productive businesses that previously struggled to access investors across borders.

If that happens, the framework could contribute to a more connected African financial system.

If it merely creates another instrument with limited trading activity, its impact will be modest.

Conclusion: the real ambition is to connect African capital to African opportunity

Nigeria's proposed African Depositary Receipts framework is an attempt to address a longstanding weakness in the continent's financial architecture.

African businesses increasingly operate across borders, but the markets financing them remain divided by different regulations, currencies, custody arrangements and settlement procedures.

A well-designed depositary-receipts system could reduce some of these barriers by allowing investors to access eligible foreign companies through their domestic markets.

Nigeria has a potential advantage in the scale of its domestic economy, its established financial institutions and its ambition to become a regional financial hub. But that position will have to be earned through credible regulation, reliable infrastructure, investor protection and a market that delivers genuine liquidity.

The Dangote refinery offering has already demonstrated how investor interest can extend beyond national borders while regulatory and operational barriers complicate participation. The proposed framework offers an opportunity to address some of those problems more systematically.

Still, the measure of success will not be the number of announcements or the number of instruments created.

It will be whether an investor in Lagos can purchase a legitimate interest in a company in Nairobi or Accra, receive dividends reliably, understand the risks, sell when necessary and transfer the proceeds without unnecessary friction.

It will be whether a business in another African country can raise meaningful capital from Nigerian investors at a reasonable cost.

And it will be whether regional integration creates opportunities for businesses and investors without weakening the safeguards that make capital markets trustworthy.

Africa's challenge is not simply to create more stock exchanges or more financial products. It is to make the continent's existing pools of capital work together. Nigeria's depositary-receipts proposal could become one step towards that goal — provided the infrastructure, regulation and investor confidence are built alongside it.