A fresh controversy over digital lending has put FairMoney under the regulatory spotlight after a Nigerian borrower alleged that a ₦1.3 million loan was transformed into a ₦6.814 million repayment obligation following a ₦500,000 top-up.
The allegation raises a fundamental question for the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC): how transparent is FairMoney’s loan-restructuring system?
The borrower, Chukwuemeka Peter Madunagu, says he had already paid ₦442,868 on the original facility before requesting the additional ₦500,000.
FairMoney’s own response confirmed that the original loan carried 13.18 per cent monthly interest, while the top-up attracted 20.14 per cent monthly interest. The company said the restructuring produced a total repayment obligation of ₦6,814,076.
Madunagu disputes the calculation, alleging that the restructuring effectively carried the original loan’s interest obligation into the new facility.
That allegation now requires an independent regulatory audit, not another automated customer-service response.
Where is the APR?
The CBN’s Consumer Protection Regulations require credit contracts to disclose the method of calculating interest and charges, applicable Annual Percentage Rate (APR), repayment information, and other key terms. Financial institutions are also required to provide loan statements and account balances to customers.
The CBN itself states that customers have a right to complete, relevant and truthful information and that contractual terms and charges should be explained before an agreement is concluded.
This puts FairMoney’s disputed ₦6.814 million calculation squarely under the microscope.
What was the outstanding principal when the ₦500,000 top-up was granted?
How much interest had actually accrued?
How much of the original interest was carried into the new facility?
What APR was disclosed to the borrower?
And can FairMoney produce an independent amortisation schedule that reconciles every naira of the ₦6.814 million?
These are questions regulators should answer.
Another borrower faces ₦6.49m repayment
The Madunagu complaint is not the only troubling document supplied.
In another FairMoney correspondence, a customer was told that although an earlier liquidation figure was ₦1.755 million, the current outstanding balance was ₦2.675 million and the amount required to fully repay the loan was ₦6.495 million, despite total approved loans of ₦2.7 million.
FairMoney explained that the lower figure represented a temporary liquidation discount that expired.
The company also said its automated system determined the applicable interest and repayment terms and that the relevant information had been displayed before the loan was accepted.
But “the system calculated it” is not a substitute for transparency.
CBN must examine the system
The regulator should now examine whether FairMoney’s top-up and restructuring practices comply with applicable consumer-protection requirements.
It should demand the underlying loan ledgers, original agreements, revised agreements, repayment schedules, APR disclosures and the precise calculation behind the disputed balances.
The question is not whether borrowers clicked “Accept”.
The question is whether they were given enough information to understand what they were accepting.
FCCPC has already drawn the line
The controversy comes as Nigeria’s authorities tighten scrutiny of digital lenders.
The FCCPC’s Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations 2025 were introduced to tackle, among other issues, exploitative practices, opaque lending, abusive recovery and inadequate transparency. The Commission says digital lenders must provide clear loan terms and disclose interest, fees and repayment schedules.
The Commission has also warned that non-compliant lenders can face serious enforcement measures, including fines and other sanctions.
Hainy must answer
The controversy also raises questions for FairMoney’s leadership, including CEO Laurin Nabuko Hainy.
The management of a major digital lender cannot leave consumers and regulators to decipher complex repayment figures generated by an automated system.
If FairMoney’s calculations are correct, the company should open the books and show the mathematics.
If the calculations comply with CBN requirements, the regulator can say so.
And if investigators find unfair, misleading or non-compliant practices, sanctions and customer redress should follow.
Regulators must act
The case should now move beyond customer support tickets.
CBN should investigate. FCCPC should investigate.
And if the regulators establish breaches, they should compel FairMoney to correct affected accounts, refund any improperly charged amounts and impose whatever sanctions the law permits.
Digital lending cannot become a regulatory blind spot simply because transactions happen through a smartphone.
For a Nigerian borrower, ₦1.3 million becoming ₦6.8 million is not an algorithm. It is a life-changing financial obligation.
FairMoney has an opportunity to settle the controversy with one thing:
Show the regulators — and the public — the full mathematics.
ATIMS reached out to the Head of Marketing and Branding of FairMoney and also to the CEO, Henry Obiekea, seeking comments and clarification on issues affecting customer safety and transparency. Despite an extended waiting period of two weeks, no response or feedback was received.
