Uwaleke Seeks Credible Delivery Framework for New Capital Market Master Plan

Ndubuisi Francis in Abuja 

Renowned professor of capital market, Uche Uwaleke, has underscored the need for the  newly launched Nigeria Capital Market Master Plan (NCMMP 2.0) to be accompanied by a credible delivery framework that establishes measurable annual milestones, provides for regular independent evaluation and makes it possible to distinguish between completed activities and reforms that have produced tangible economic outcomes.

The NCMMP 2.0 (2026-2036), which was launched in Abuja recently by Vice-President Kashim Shettima, is a roadmap designed to expand Nigeria’s capital market from about N250 trillion to N750 trillion by 2036.

In an article titled ‘NCMMP 2.0: The Gaps in National Alignment and Inclusive Consultation,’ which he made available to THISDAY, Uwaleke described the Master Plan as a commendable and ambitious undertaking that deserves recognition. 

He said: “The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the sponsors, FSD Africa and the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), and the consortium of consultants led by Genesis Analytics and Bourse Consult deserve commendation for investing the expertise, resources and collaborative effort required to articulate a strategic vision for Nigeria’s capital market over the next decade. 

“The aspiration to build a diverse, efficient, transparent and innovative capital market that positions Nigeria as a regional financial hub and mobilizes the capital needed to drive wealth creation and a US$1 trillion economy by 2030 is quite compelling. There is every reason to be confident that the plan can make a meaningful contribution to Nigeria’s economic transformation. 

“However, the success of a masterplan of this magnitude will depend not only on its aspirations and proposed reforms, but also on the realism of its time horizon, its alignment with national development priorities, the inclusiveness of its formulation and the strength of the institutional arrangements for its implementation.”

Uwaleke, who is the Director of the Institute of Capital Market Studies, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, observed that one fundamental question was whether a 10-year implementation horizon, spanning 2026-2036, is the most appropriate framework for the NCMMP 2.0. 

He argued that while a long-term vision was necessary for transforming a capital market, the implementation programme must be anchored in a timeframe that is sufficiently realistic, measurable and aligned with the country’s prevailing economic policy framework. 

“In this respect, Malaysia’s Capital Market Masterplan 2026-2030, launched on 9th March 2026, offers a useful model. Malaysia has adopted a five-year implementation horizon within a broader 20-year vision extending to 2045. 

“This approach distinguishes between the long-term destination and the medium-term actions required to get there. It allows policymakers and market participants to translate strategic ambitions into specific, time-bound priorities, assess progress against measurable milestones and recalibrate interventions in response to changing economic conditions without losing sight of the overarching vision. Nigeria would have benefited from a similar architecture,” he said. 

According to him, Nigeria already has a National Development Plan for 2026-2030, situated within the longer-term Nigeria Agenda 2050, adding that a capital market masterplan covering 2026-2030 would therefore have provided a natural and coherent framework for aligning capital market reforms with national economic priorities, while preserving a longer-term perspective towards 2050. 

He explained that it was not merely a question of administrative convenience or the choice of a more convenient planning cycle, but goes without saying that the capital market does not operate in an economic or policy vacuum. 

“Its development is profoundly influenced by macroeconomic stability, fiscal and monetary policy, the investment climate, public-sector borrowing, pension and insurance regulations, infrastructure development and the government’s broader economic priorities. 

“The market can mobilise capital, facilitate investment, deepen financial inclusion and support enterprise growth, but it cannot independently overcome policy constraints that lie beyond its institutional reach. indeed, the NCMMP 2.0 document itself provides a compelling reason to take this alignment seriously. 

“It acknowledges that the first Capital Market Master Plan, covering 2015-2025, achieved only 63 per cent of its planned activities, with just two of its 21 macro-objectives fully achieved by the end of 2025, while the remaining 19 were at varying stages of execution. 

“A revised masterplan was subsequently developed in 2021 to reflect market realities, while the absence of alignment with Nigeria’s national development blueprints weakened broader buy-in from policymakers. 

“These are significant lessons. They suggest that ambitious targets and extensive stakeholder engagement, however valuable, cannot substitute for a planning framework that is integrated with the national policy environment and commands sustained political and institutional ownership. It would therefore have been prudent to make the NCMMP 2.0 a medium-term implementation plan for 2026-2030, explicitly aligned with the National Development Plan for the same period, within a longer-term capital market vision extending to 2050. 

“Such an arrangement would have offered a more direct connection between capital market reforms and national economic objectives, made it easier to assign responsibilities to relevant government institutions, and strengthened accountability for delivery. 

“It would also have provided a natural opportunity for a comprehensive review at the end of 2030, when the next phase could be developed in light of the country’s economic performance, policy direction and progress in capital market development,” he said, stressing that a 10-year plan is not inherently inappropriate.

Its effectiveness, he observed, depends on how well its implementation cycle is integrated with the national planning system.

He noted that the concern, therefore, was not the ambition of the NCMMP 2.0, but the risk of creating another planning horizon that may not adequately correspond with the policy framework upon which its success depends.

“The second issue concerns the breadth and inclusiveness of the stakeholder consultation undertaken in developing the masterplan,” he pointed out.