The aftermath of Union Bank’s massive looting scandal has left the institution teetering on the edge, with nearly ₦400 billion in losses and ₦147 billion in unpaid charges by 2025. Though the Central Bank of Nigeria’s (CBN) timely intervention prevented a catastrophic collapse , a cyberattack on March 23, 2025, under the watch of Yetunde Oni , its current CEO which resulted in N9.3 billion stolen from customer accounts, also raised serious concerns about the bank’s cybersecurity measures and regulatory oversight.
The above ugly scenario , could be traced to a massive looting scandal that brought it to its knees, No doubt , this is a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked greed and corruption in Nigeria’s financial sector.
At the heart of the scandal is a staggering ₦250 billion in hidden losses, concealed from regulators and shareholders alike. This deliberate attempt to mask the bank’s true financial health not only misled investors but also posed a significant risk to the entire financial system. The sheer scale of the deception is breathtaking, and it’s a wonder that it wasn’t detected earlier.
The bank’s former management also took out a $300 million foreign loan without adequate protection, leaving the institution vulnerable to exchange rate fluctuations and potential default. This reckless decision was a clear dereliction of duty, prioritizing short-term gains over the long-term sustainability of the bank. Furthermore, the use of bank funds to buy shares is a blatant abuse of power, amounting to a brazen looting of depositors’ money.
The improper withdrawal of over $100 million is another example of the callous disregard for the law and the bank’s stakeholders. These actions demonstrate a culture of entitlement and impunity that must be addressed if Nigeria’s financial sector is to regain the trust of investors and the public.
The repeated setbacks underscore the need for more robust regulatory frameworks and enhanced cybersecurity protocols to protect Nigeria’s financial sector. As Union Bank navigates its recapitalization efforts, investors and customers alike are watching closely to see if the institution can truly turn the corner. The CBN’s actions will be crucial in determining whether Union Bank’s recovery is sustainable or merely a temporary reprieve from a more systemic crisis
The recent court judgement restoring the sacked board and the appeal by the CBN has created governance uncertainty in the bank .However, whether the old board is restored or the current board continues to manage the bank , the signal from the CBN is clear: the bank could not be adjudged to be healthy enough for the old board to handle without any fear though it remains a going concern . The CBN is certainly not satisfied with its level of resources at the disposal of the sacked leadership and its capability on risk management .
The CBN fear may not be farfetched with the havoc allegedly wretched on the bank by that board. Union Bank’s 2023 financial results paint a dire picture of a institution grappling with existential challenges . The bank’s staggering N58.5 billion impairment charge, a whopping 1200% increase from 2022, exposes the depths of its asset quality woes, while the N226 billion FX revaluation loss underscores its vulnerability to currency fluctuations . With a capital shortfall of approximately N351.9 billion, Union Bank faces an uphill battle
Buit a bigger concern over this bank is that even the new board and management have failed to display they have what it takes to pull this bank out of the wood either by resources at their disposal or by their capabilities . Nothing spectacular has changed with its inability to meet the recapitalization deadline.
The depth of the decay unleashed on this bank by poor leadership since the days of Barthlomew Ebong remains very ernomous. Despite the impressive credentials flaunted by the so-called core investors and the appointed managers, the case of Union is just too tough for them to handle . Union Bank today remains partly a laggard , partly a distressed bank after successive dillitanntes at the helm of affairs. They live big , yet the bank remains in doldrums.
Union Bank’s struggles can be seen as a classic case of corporate fossilization, where its “genetic coding” – the entrenched beliefs, assumptions, and norms guiding its decision-making – has become a liability in a rapidly evolving financial landscape. The bank’s inability to adapt to changing market conditions, evident in its staggering impairment charges and FX losses, suggests a rigid adherence to outdated strategies and a failure to reengineer its corporate genetics . As the Nigerian banking sector undergoes seismic shifts, Union Bank’s “dinosaur” tendencies – its inability to pivot, innovate, or challenge established norms – threaten its very survival, serving as a stark reminder that in the corporate world, adaptation is the ultimate currency.
Union Bank’s struggles can also be attributed to a defective managerial frame of its leadership , limiting its perception of novel opportunities and non-traditional competitors. The bank’s entrenched beliefs and assumptions about the industry, customers, and competition have become a liability, hindering innovation and adaptability. With a dominant managerial frame that prioritizes maintaining margins over disrupting the status quo, Union Bank risks becoming a laggard, failing to write off depreciating intellectual capital and underinvesting in new ideas. This frame, shaped by past successes, may lead managers to believe they’re doing everything right, while ignoring emerging threats and opportunities
With the above ugly scenario, it is certain that turning around a bank like Union Bank is not for a dilettante ,not for merely intellectually curious brought in to chop .Only those not content to follow, who desire to rewrite the rules of the game ,unafraid of orthodoxy, more inclined to build than to cut , those concerned to make the difference than making career and those who absolutely committed to staking out the future first could transform this bank .
Yetunde Oni, the current Managing Director has done nothing to convince anyone she has any key to turn the bank around. . .A closer look at its 2024 numbers reveals some concerning trends. Non-interest income has declined by 3%, while operating expenses have ballooned by 52%. The bank’s net income plummeted to ₦44.798 billion in 2024, a 32.4% decrease from ₦66.292 billion in 2023. Earnings per share have also taken a hit, dropping to ₦1.53 from ₦2.27 in 2023. These declines raise concerns about the bank’s profitability and shareholder value.
The bank’s dismal financial performance has left its shareholders reeling. With a paltry net interest margin, squeezed net profit margins, and a bloated cost-to-income ratio, it’s clear that management has failed to deliver. The bank’s non-performing loan ratio is alarmingly high, a stark reminder of its reckless lending practices, while its anemic earnings per share have eroded shareholder value. Year after year, this bank has underwired its competitors, leaving investors to wonder if there’s anyone at the helm.
Union Bank is dire need of a board and management with the capability to rewrite the rules of the game . A leadership with foresight and intellectual leadership ,capacity to foreshorten migration paths and to compete for market position and market share in the race to the future .
The imperative of the above is that for a company to gain industry leadership, it must show some signs of competing for the future. A leader with the capability to compete for the future displays this in the three overallping stage battles and hurdles to emerge victorious. At the first stage , it’s a competition to imagine the future, where visionaries leverage trends and discontinuities to redefine industry boundaries.
This is followed by a company’s capability to accumulate competencies, test concepts, and build coalitions to shape the industry structure.
Finally, the battle shifts to market position and share, with innovation focused on incremental gains and efficiency.The battle for market position and share take place within fairly well defined parameters of value, cost, price and service; where innovation is focused on product extensions, efficiency improvements, and what are usually marginal gains in differentiation. This is because at this stage competition the issues of technological approaches, rival product or service concepts , and competing channels had largely been settled.
To succeed across those stages, companies must clear five critical hurdles: committing to an arena (choosing where to play), acquiring competencies (building the right skills and tech), discovering mass market fit (nailing what customers want), setting standards (influencing the ecosystem), and defending share (staying ahead of rivals) – and overcoming these is key to shaping the future . These hurdles require strategic bets, smart investments, and adaptability, ultimately determining who leads and who lags in the future.
The above hurdles are what separate the champions from laggards. Companies that navigate these challenges effectively rewrite the rules of competition, capture new markets, and build lasting dominance. Those that falter get left in the dust, struggling to catch up in a rapidly evolving landscape. The stakes are high, and the outcome shapes the future.
Whether the so-called core investors in the past or the government appointed board , none has displayed the capability to excel in the above battles . What , indeed, is occupying the attention of the leadership of Union Bank when others busy with that three stage battle targeted at creating the future? A look into the operations of Union Bank and its management’s mindset shows a disproportionate concentration of time on the third stage at expense of the first two pre-market battle, managing the present and not enough time creating the future .But unknown to its leadership , to create future , a company must first be able to forget some of its past .
This is the core error of Union Bank’s leadership.But world-class managers think differently. To them , the first two are where the decisive battle for industry leadership is fought . Any company that fails in the above two stages in the race to the future is not likely to excel in the battle for market position and share ..
Union Bank’s leaders have kept fighting to revive the bank’s former glory, but so far, no luck . Despite their efforts, the bank’s resurgence remains elusive. Its leadership inability to imagine a new opportunity arena and to actively shape the emergence of that future industry structure to its own advantage are the critical factors behind its laggard status .The inability of the leadership of Union Bank , both in the past and in the present time , to creating the future more than preserving its past , has led to continuous restructuring and reengineering as its strategies to keep its going concern.
The new leadership at Union Bank faces a daunting task: challenging the orthodoxies that have held the bank back. To reinvent itself, Union Bank must regenerate its core strategies, reconceiving its market definition, redrawing firm boundaries, redefining value propositions, and rethinking competition assumptions . This requires a willingness to question established norms and embrace radical change. The court’s ruling presents an opportunity for the new leadership to break free from the past and chart a bold new course. Will they rise to the challenge?
