The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC)
proposed rules on Crowdfunding have elicited different reactions from
stakeholders, it has rattled the cage of most businesses that leverage on the
internet to access credit to finance their business, businesses that create an
opportunity for other businesses to access credit on their platforms and
operators of financial portals.

There is no gainsaying that the initiative is
laudable and this is because of the three-way regulatory oversight and
protection which the SEC seeks to administer on the issuers, the investors and
the Crowdfunding Intermediary that operates the Crowdfunding Portal, where the
credits/funds are accessed. 

The intendment of the proposed rules is to
solely cater to investment-based/equity crowdfunding thereby alienating other
forms of Crowdfunding, such as debt-based crowdfunding and donation-based
crowdfunding in Nigeria, from its control. However, this is not to say that
debt-based crowdfunding or donation-based crowdfunding are alien to our laws in
Nigeria, as Section 58 (1) of the Banks and other Financial Institutions Act
has put any form of debt-based crowdfunding under the purview of the Central
Bank of Nigeria, as it reads as follows;

1. Without
   prejudice to the provisions of Part I of this Act, no person shall carry
   on other financial business in
   Nigeria other than insurance and stockbroking except it is a company
   duly incorporated in Nigeria and holds a valid license granted under
   section 59 of this Act.

On the other hand, donation-based
crowdfunding which is a vehicle for philanthropic causes is spearheaded by
NGO’s registerable under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, as an
Incorporated Trustee.

The purpose of this article is to
essentially comb through some of the provisions of the Rules, put them through
a viable or non-viability test and then assist the fintech companies in making
informed decisions, as a result of this exposition.

AN
OVERVIEW OF THE RULES

Eligibility to Raise Funds

SEC, through these rules, has set
eligibility parameters for MSMEs (Medium, Small and Micro Enterprises) who seek
to raise funds to finance a project, business or venture on a Crowdfunding
portal, as it posited that any such MSME must present a minimum of two (2)
years’ operating track record to the Crowdfunding Intermediary before it can
utilize the Crowdfunding Portal. The rationale behind this parameter is not
far-fetched, as it ultimately seeks to sift through companies that might be set
up as shell companies for Ponzi schemes, in pursuance of its Anti-Money
Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) outlook.

Nature
of the Investment Instruments issued on a Crowdfunding Portal by an Issuer

A point worthy of
deliberation in the Rules is the type of investment instruments that issuers, being
MSMEs and unlisted public companies, can offer to investors in exchange for
funds raised on the portal. The Rules specifies
which instruments are permissible and they are as follows-Ordinary shares, plain
vanilla bonds/debentures and simple investment contracts. However, the
confusion that is likely to arise from these investment instruments takes root
in the features of a private company limited by shares vis-à-vis a public
company limited by shares, as encapsulated in the Companies and Allied Matters
Act; To wit, Section 22 (5) of CAMA prevents
a private company from inviting the public to subscribe for any shares or
debentures of the company while a public company is authorized to issue shares
and other debt securities to the public.

The import of the foregoing is that
a private company limited by shares, cannot issue shares or other debt
securities on a Crowdfunding Portal, but can enter into a simple investment
contract between itself and the investors, insofar as the salient clauses
regulating the investment are properly constituted in the agreement. Investment
contracts are transactions whereby one or more parties, agree to invest or
shell out a specific amount of money, to a particular business or company, with
the expectation of getting returns from the income or profit generated by the
business or company, as and when due.

Certain Exemptions to the Provisions
of the Investment and Securities Act

The Rules also hint at a departure
from the requirement of registration of Securities under the provisions of Section
54 of the Investment and Securities Act, as it stipulates that an
issuer may offer or sell securities or other investment instruments, without
the need for prior registration pursuant to the Act, provided the issuer is an
entity incorporated in Nigeria and has been accredited/approved by the
Crowdfunding Portal to utilize its platform. Furthermore, it states that the
issuer will be exempted from registering its securities or other investment
instruments, if the aggregate amount of shares and investment instruments
offered and sold by the issuer within a twelve (12)-month period, complies with
the following thresholds-

1. The
   maximum amount that a Medium Enterprise may raise will not exceed N100
   Million.
2. The
   maximum amount that a Small Enterprise may raise will not exceed N70
   Million.
3. The maximum amount that a Micro-Enterprise
   may raise will not exceed N50 Million.

However, the above limits do not
apply to Digital Commodities Investment Platform which are companies who
leverage on an online electronic platform to offer agricultural produce,
livestock and its derivative products and all other goods and articles to
investors.

It is noteworthy to state that the
Commission in calculating the maximum amount of shares or investment
instruments offered and sold by an issuer, within the thresholds and time
limit, will take into account entities controlled by or under common control
with the issuer and any predecessors of the issuer. This means that the
Commission will take into account, any Holding Company and its subsidiaries,
any Group Company and its sister companies, as well as companies under new
management as a result of a merger or acquisition, in determining whether an
issuer is keeping or has kept with the conditions set in the Rules for the
utilization of any Crowdfunding Portal.

Crowdfunding Portal Requirement for
Portals located Outside Nigeria

The Rules also makes
provisions for a litmus test to determine when a person is said to be
operating, providing or maintaining a Crowdfunding Portal in Nigeria and the
main point of concern in this test, is the reference to platforms outside
Nigeria, that actively targets Nigerian Investors and mandating that such
platforms will be a crowdfunding portal in Nigeria. The reservation that this
brings to the fore, is the issue of choice of law with respect to an investor
who decides to invest in a platform outside Nigeria, knowing fully well that
the choice of law as evidenced in the terms of use of that platform, will be
the law of the jurisdiction of its area of operation and then proceeds to
submit to the jurisdiction, by subscribing to the services of that platform
outside Nigeria. The decision to make platforms outside Nigeria, that targets
Nigerian Investors, subject to the Rules of the Commission, will not be a
sustainable one because of the rule
of party autonomy—the power enjoyed by litigants to choose the law applicable
to their cross-border legal relationship.

Assuming without conceding that the
decision by the Commission through the Rules, to subject Crowdfunding Portals
outside Nigeria to its Rules is somehow sustained, its metrics for determining
active targeting through direct or indirect promotion of the Portal in Nigeria
fails to take into consideration online/social media marketing and its
borderless nature, which is the modus operandi of most businesses today. The
Rules only makes provision for direct or indirect promotion in Nigeria, which
connotes physicality. It is almost as if the Proposed Rules has refused to give
cognizance to the impetus of online/social media marketing/promotion in this
current day and age.

Registration Requirements for a Crowdfunding
Portal

According to the Rules, a
crowdfunding portal can only be registered and operated by a Crowdfunding
intermediary and the only entities that can be licensed as a Crowdfunding
Intermediary are Exchanges, Dealer, Broker, Broker/Dealer or Alternative
Trading Facility as prescribed under the Act and the SEC Rules and Regulations.

 

The Rules also permits a category
for a Restricted Dealer, which caters for Dealers who are registered by the
Commission for crowdfunding activities simpliciter.

 

Furthermore, certain persons do not
fall under the microscope of the Commission with respect to these rules on
Crowdfunding and they are as follows;

 

1. A
   technology service provider who merely builds an infrastructure, software
   or system for an operator, being a Crowdfunding Intermediary. This
   encompasses tech companies who build solutions to enable Crowdfunding
   Intermediaries leverage on technology to reach a wider audience.
2. An
   operator of a Communication Infrastructure that merely routes an order to
   an approved stock market.
3. An
   operator of a financial portal that merely aggregates content and provides
   links to financial sites of service and information provider. This
   category covers fintech companies that serve as a digital investment
   marketplace, that connects investors to investment opportunities offered
   by Broker/Dealers, who are either a Crowdfunding Intermediary or a
   Restricted Dealer.

 

The Rules also prescribe the minimum
paid-up capital of N100 million for any entity interested in being Crowdfunding
Intermediaries, as well as a Restricted Dealer. Additionally, the Commission
requires such other requirements to satisfy itself that either the Chief
Executive Officer of the Crowdfunding Intermediary, its board of directors or
any of its officers are not unfit to operate the Crowdfunding portal, by reason
of being adjudged dishonest or fraudulent by a Court or other Self-Regulatory
Organization in the Nigerian capital market; among many other requirements.

 

Operation
of a Crowdfunding Portal

The Commission empowers the
Operators of a Crowdfunding Portal, through the Rules, to take appropriate
actions against any person in breach, either the issuer or any investor, by
directing that such person takes the appropriate remedial measures as the
circumstances require. The measures may include but not limited to suspension
or expulsion of such persons after consultation with the Commission. The rules
also provide for an avenue whereby such expelled or suspended persons may
appeal against the decision of the operator to the Commission. This provision
is especially important to ensure that issuers, who misrepresent facts or
information in their offering documents, upon filing with the portal, are
penalized.

Revocation
of Registration

To ensure that no
crowdfunding portal is redundant, the Rules have
set a six (6) months period of inactivity, which will necessitate a revocation
of the registration of any Crowdfunding Portal. Also, the Commission can revoke
the Registration of any Crowdfunding portal on the occasion of non-payment of
prescribed fees, failure to meet any requirements prescribed by the Rules or
where the intermediary contravenes any of the provisions of the Act, the rules
and regulations and the code of conduct for capital market operators.

Operation
of a Trust Account

The Rules specifies that every
crowdfunding portal shall appoint a custodian, who shall establish and maintain
a separate trust account for each funding round on the portal, with a financial
institution registered by the Commission as a Custodian. This presupposes the
existence of a trust deed on the portal, which would essentially simplify how
the funds invested will be disbursed to the issuer and the rights of the trust
beneficiaries (being the investors) to the trust property (being the monies
invested).

Participation
of the Issuer on the Crowdfunding Portal

All issuers seeking to raise funds
on the portal are expected to file a standardized offering document with the
Crowdfunding portal and it will essentially include details relating to the
issuer, such as the use of the proceeds, the issuers business plan, the project
or business to be funded, the minimum amount required, the target amount and
such other salient information about the investment opportunity the issuer is
offering on the portal.

Every issuer shall have its funding
offer live on crowdfunding portal for not more than sixty (60) days which means
at the end of the sixty (60) days, if the issuer does not raise the minimum
amount it requires, it will be required to withdraw the offer and wait until
after ninety (90) days from the date of such withdrawal to list a new offer.

However, in the event that the
amount raised meets the minimum amount required by the issuer but not the
target amount, the issuer will be required to present to the portal and the
investors, a revised business plan, which will show how it intends to maximize
the use of the amount raised, though falling short of its target, without
negatively impacting operations of the issuer.

 

Participation
of the Investor

The Rules provide investors with a
forty-eight (48) hours cooling off period to withdraw their investments on a
Crowdfunding portal, from the date of close of an offer from an issuer. Any
amount which must have been debited to the account of the investor prior to the
withdrawal shall be refunded to the investor within forty-eight (48) hours of
such withdrawal date.

 

Non-permitted Issuers

There are certain entities
that are prohibited from raising funds through a Crowdfunding Portal and they
are as follows;

a.      
Complex
structures-These are companies with no immediate transparency of the beneficial
owners of the company.

b.     
Public
listed companies and their subsidiaries- These are companies whose securities
are listed and trading on the floor of the Nigerian Stock Exchange.

c.      
Companies
with no specific business plan or a blind pool- These are companies with
business plans which are solely for merging with or acquiring unidentified
entities.

d.     
Companies
that propose to use the funds raised to provide loans or invest in other
entities;

e.      
Such
other entity as may be specified by the Commission.

Requirements for Digital Commodities
Investment Platforms (DCIP)

According to the Rules, a DCIP is a
platform that connects investors to specific agricultural or commodities
projects, for the purpose of sponsoring such projects in exchange for a return.
The provisions of Rules 43 (a) of
the Proposed Rules, reveals that such agritech companies shall be permitted to
provide crowdfunding portal services but then Rules 43 (d) contradicts with the provision, namely; DCIP shall
only host commodities investment projects on crowdfunding platforms other than
a platform which it controls whether directly or indirectly. The Commission
with this contradiction is seen to be approbating and reprobating because if it
says they are permitted to render crowdfunding portal services, why then is it
saying they can only host their projects on other crowdfunding platforms that
they do not control, in another breath. This contradiction needs to be resolved
by the Commission.

The
Way forward for Fintech Companies in view of these Rules

It appears from the Rules that
Fintech Companies have only two alternatives open to them;

1. They can
   aggregate content from certified Crowdfunding Intermediaries and provide
   links to their portals on their websites, application or other similar
   modules, thereby making themselves out to simply provide a digital
   investment marketplace that connects investors to curated offerings of
   certain Crowdfunding Intermediaries

2. Register a
   cooperative society under the Cooperative Societies Law of their
   respective states. For instance, the Lagos State Cooperative Federation
   under the Cooperative Societies Law of Lagos State 2014 makes provisions
   for a Cooperative Multipurpose Society (CMS). The CMS is a cooperative
   society that goes beyond just encouraging savings and giving out loans to
   members, it can buy and sell goods, venture into businesses and service
   members and non-members. The Director of the Cooperative Society is saddled
   with the responsibility of ensuring that all cooperative societies run
   their operations in accordance with the cooperative principles, which
   means the SEC does not regulate the activities of the Cooperative Society. 

Suffice to say, that the overall outlook
of the SEC Rules on Crowdfunding is to give adequate protection to investors
who wish to take part in the Crowdfunding Market, as it ensures that the
investors have access to clear information on any investment vehicle offered by
an issuer. This allows them to assess the risk and make informed decisions
based on the information at their disposal. 

Furthermore, the Rule also enjoins
the Crowdfunding Portals to have risks disclosures on their portals as a result
of the volatility of the Nigerian financial market, whilst ensuring that they
operate an orderly, fair and transparent market activity on their platforms.

The feature of MSME’s in the Rules
shows that there is now a recognition of the pivotal role they play in our
economy, as they are the bedrock of Nigeria’s industrialization and inclusive
economic development, as once described by the Vice President, Prof. Yemi
Osinbajo. The import of their inclusion guarantees their access to much-needed
capital which would foster productivity and boost innovation whilst allowing
the economy to tap into the entrepreneurial prowess of our youthful population. 

Sadly, the tenor of the rules
foretells the exclusion of many fintech companies’ and this means that they
either merge with companies with the requisite wherewithal or they reinvent
themselves. The Commission has created a centralized community which would
largely be filled with major players in the finance industry who have the
required capital base to run a crowdfunding portal. They have failed to appreciate
the ingenuity reposed in the fintech companies and their ability to foster
financial inclusion through their people-centric business model.

 

In Nigeria, it is an offence to draw tribal marks on persons
under the age of 18.

PENALTY 

-5,000 or 

-Imprisonment for one (1) month.

These marks are usually created with sharp objects, which
gradually heals, and eventually becomes indelible. 

See Section 24 and 277 of the Child Right Act.

 

Arome Abu is the Principal Partner of TCLP.

CAVEAT: Note that this information is provided for general
 enlightenment purposes and is not intended to be any form of legal
advice.

Obscure Legal Facts is an exclusive daily publication of THE
COUNSEL L-P. 

Plot 108 Idris Gidado 

Way, Wuye, Abuja.

abuarome@gmail.com 

+234 803 262 2359

+234 708 1156 539.

Twitter: @TheCounseLP

Photo Credit – Pulse.ng 

 

Since its outbreak in Wuhan, the
notorious COVID-19 has spread to become a phenomenon that exerts effect on the
world on a grand scale, cutting across every facet of human endeavours and
decisively affecting everything it touches. While nothing else had shaken the
world in a couple of years as the novel pandemic, it is only natural that such
an enormous global event would inspire a lot of responses from a lot of angles.

Interestingly, the outbreak of the
COVID-19heralds an era of landmark litigations, opening a floodgate of lawsuits
brought by activists, nations and other disgruntled forces seeking to hold
China liable for the deaths, untoward economic hardship and global turmoil
caused by the virus. While these suits appear to be manifestly vexatious on
account of lack of a watertight account on the origin of the virus or any
plausible evidence that China did engineer and weaponised or negligently
omitted to contain the virus,I do not want to venture into the nitty-gritty of
these arguments as this is just a commentary on the propriety of the suit filed
by a coalition of lawyers in Nigeria, and other similar suits elsewhere.

The class action is being fronted by
Prof. EpiphanyAzinge, SAN, a revered learned silk and seasoned academic I
greatly respect, claiming a whopping $200 billion as damages for the “loss of
lives, economic strangulation, trauma, hardship, social disorientation, mental
torture and disruption of normal daily existence of people in Nigeria”. This comes
amidst the spate of suits pursuing similar goals in the US, Australia, etc.

These suits, as revolutionary as
they may seem, are specious in light of the unassailable doctrine of sovereign
immunity within the parlance of International Law. It is an elementary
principle of law that sovereign nations are immune from legal proceedings in
another’s own court, and this doctrine is a huge barrier to the liability of
governments to foreign judicial oversight. This doctrine was enunciated from
the time when it appeared to be an affront to national sovereignty for a
sovereign state to be a subject of judicial control of another. The obvious
logic behind this rule is that if allowed, it would open a Pandora’s box
allowing nations, using their courts, to hold one another liable for alleged
misdeeds.

The forces behind the suit before
the Federal High Court of Nigeria ought to have given some thoughts to the fact
that China, being a sovereign state, is shielded with immunity from actions in
the court of any other nation. Even though various laws place substantial
exceptions to this general rule, this case is not a just exception given that
prevention and control of the COVID-19 falls squarely within the sovereign
governmental affairs of China (acts jure
imperri), and not a contractual obligation (acts jure gestions) that would scale the test of immunity.

The nascent argument making a case
for waiver will not stand, as the rule of sovereign immunity is not a favour
nations do for their sovereign equals. It’s based on a shared reciprocal
understanding that we will not allow our people to sue you if you will not
allow yours to sue us.

The immunity doctrine is hinged on
the principle of sovereign equality, often expressed by the maxim “par in parem non habet imperium”, to
wit: equals have no sovereignty over each other. After landmark articulations
of this doctrine in judicial decisions, conscious attempts to provide
legislative flavour to the doctrine followed suit, hence international
instruments such as the European Convention on State Immunity 1972, the United
Nations Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their
Property 2004 (the New York Convention) were re-echoed by national legislations
such as the United States’ Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976, Britain’s
State Immunity Act 1979, the Canadian State Immunity Act 1982, among others.

The doctrine is broad; so broad that
the United States’ Supreme Court interpreted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act to rule in favour of Nigeria in Verlinden B.V v. Central Bank of Nigeriathat
foreign countries need not even respond to complaints before US courts.

While it is undisputed that the
sovereign immunity doctrine is not absolute, it follows that the suit filed by the
learned silk should be reconsidered against the weight of the avalanche of
arguments in favour of China’s immunity. Not even the point that the laws in
support of sovereign immunity are foreign laws or international treaties not
binding on Nigeria will stand, as the case for immunity of states has evolved
as a robust, impenetrable principle of customary international law, barring
foreign impairment of state sovereign prerogatives. The most honourable thing
in the circumstance is for the learned silk to withdraw the suit and, if he has
to, explore other remedies through the International Court of Justice.

Atiku M.
Jafar

Atiku is a legal
researcher and a past National President of the Law Students’ Association of
Nigeria. He can be reached on amjafar01@gmail.com

Photo Credit – Bloomberg 

I thought I’ve met brilliant and smart people in my life. Yes, I thought so. But when I met this handsome, young man, though old according to number, I knew I still have lots more to meet.

He introduced himself as Deacon Dele Adesina, someone else told me he’s a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

His Charisma is superb!
His voice, you could sit and listen forever!

Then the ideas reeled out by him? Fantastic, incredible yet so realistic. I was almost swept off my tender, tiny key legs shaa.

Just then I said to myself, “here stands my NBA President, come what may”.

What am I supposed to do?
I’ve decided to follow DASAN and so, I’m expected to convince many others to follow him. That I do bearing in mind that politics is a game of number.

If we resolve with all our hearts, to preach DASAN to every lawyer we meet and talk with on daily basis, we’ll populate our camp and depopulate the sides.

For the change we desire, we must be committed to this cause.

DASAN all the way!

Ada H.A. Nwafor
YLF Chairman, Okehi R/S

It is no longer news that ESQ Practical Academy organized a virtual conference on the 28th April 2020 and Deacon Dele Adesina SAN who believes the future of the Nigerian Bar lies in Young Lawyers, sponsored several old and young lawyers out of his magnanimity to benefit from this conference, particularly the interesting segment of how lawyers can become virtual and embrace ce the e-lawyering skills in view of the arrival of web-based technologies and the current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic ravaging the world economy.

COVID-19 has a ravaging effect on the world economy and its intense and rapid spread forced most countries of the world to enforce a lockdown of every aspect of their economy including the legal profession.

The legal profession is not free from the lockdown and this made it very difficult for many lawyers to operate because the legal practice has been confined to the four walls of the firm (with files and research majorly conducted in the law library filled with avalanche copies of books and law reports) and the court (which obviously has no method of e-filing system).

As a young lawyer who benefitted from this sponsorship by Dele Adesina SAN, the conference was facilitated by senior legal practitioners across the world that are well exposed to the practice of law in Nigeria and other countries, from whom I learnt and understood the following lessons:

E-lawyering method should also developed: lawyers should take the opportunity of the lessons from the Conference and the Covid-19 lockdown not to be confined any longer to the firm’s walls but practice anywhere irrespective of time and distance with the use of web-based databases and software system to interact with clients and prepare required processes.

Another important lesson is that law Libraries should embrace a virtual practice and take a new dimension. It is no longer a case where legal practice depends heavily on library printed information resources but e-lawyering approach that depends on electronic information resources such as e-portals, web-based computing devices, online databases and social media. Virtual libraries, that is, online libraries should be adopted where you practice law without necessary flipping through the pages of physical law reports before a well-researched brief can be written.

*Online clientele*: During this lockdown lawyers have been able to render little or no service at all, there are many clients who are seriously in need of the services of lawyers but due to distance and the lockdown there is no way to get the service required as the four wall lawyer cannot access his bricks. This is where E-lawyering becomes useful. E-lawyering involves rendering legal services online through web based technologies and with this the problems of clients are solved without physical contacts.

The Court is not left out, the E-filing system should also be adopted by the courts so that the courts will not be put on unnecessary hold in times like this. The court finds it uneasy to sit because of the large human resources and the physical contact required put into it for effective running of the judiciary. This calls for E-filling system in our judiciary. I must however acknowledge the fact that we have now began to hear the echo of introduction of e-filing system from the judiciary in the last few days. My hope and prayer is that the Judiciary makes this a permanent feature in our judicial process nationwide.

Deacon has the future of the Bar at heart, the future of the Bar are the Young Lawyers, virtual legal practice is needed more by the young lawyers, this is why DASAN sponsored us to benefit and implement it. This is one of the ways DASAN is coming to secure the future of the Bar.

Do you as a lawyer still doubt if DASAN is truly coming to secure the future of the NIGERIAN BAR? I have pitched my tent with DASAN in order to secure the future of the Bar. Please join me on this noble cause.

Saheed  Abiola
Writes from the Ilorin Bar.

 

”One of the seven was wont to say:
‘That laws (sic) were like cobwebs; where the small flies were caught and the great brake through.”’

An egalitarian society is what oga Adeshina seeks to put in place coupled with senses of belonging and responsibility in order for the bar to retain its place as the pride of the legal profession in Africa.

Deacon Dele Adesina like Prince Otto Von Bismarck believes in the doctrine of the possible and the attainable. Thus, if you are looking for sweet words so as to make you forget your worries in the interim but no action, he might not be your man. He is however the man who acknowledges problems and seeks to tackle them head-on. With Adesina, I concede that good souls still exist.

My affections for Adesina SAN makes me think of joining a remix of the song ‘Bahd, Baddo, Baddest’ but this time with the lyrics, ‘Oga Dele na our man, Dele na our man….’ This I’d have gleefully done alongside legal practice but for the Rules of Professional Conduct on incompatible business. ‘E pain me sha, but wetin man go do.’

Adeboye ‘Seye Thompson writes from the Ilorin bar“`

Conclusion In addition to the human impact of COVID-19 there is enormous economic, business and commercial impact being felt globally. Proprietors of Nigeria MSMEs are navigating uncertain times. They are in over their heads and now more than ever, they need all the affordable assistance from all quarters especially from the government.  MSMEs are the foundation, of our society. They are fabrics woven into the very core of our economy. Such that the survival of Nigerian economy is to a huge extent dependent on the survival of our MSMEs. In the spirit of self preservation, it is imperative that Nigerian government devise practical approaches to ensure the survival of these enterprises,.		Commendably, the MSME National Survey Report, identified financing, taxation, unfavorable policies, power, water supply etc as priority areas for government assistance for MSMES.  There should be concrete plans to address the deficiencies in these areas within the shortest possible time. It is important that the funds made available to MSMEs are well segmented and the process of acquisition simplified, to ensure its accessibility to proprietors of these enterprises especially the Micro enterprises. During the course of this pandemic, There is need for initiatives that will train and inform proprietors of MSMEs of their options and foster financial literacy. At this time, requisite information and directions could be passed through the media. If the government is religious in implementing these initiatives, and committed to developing more helpful ones, then there is hope for MSMEs and for our economy post COVID 19.
Nnamdi Mbanefo LLM, MCIArb Email: mbanefonnamdi@yahoo.com Phone No: +2348034800288