Back
Industry Information
Last updated September 16, 2024
Africa has been working tirelessly to close its credit gap. Efforts to support small and medium-sized businesses have brought some positive changes. But now, this hard-earned progress is in jeopardy because of rising loan defaults and lack of loan default consequences.
Right now, 82.6% of formal small businesses in Africa still struggle to get the financing they need. The credit-to-GDP ratio in sub-Saharan Africa is just 18%, which is way behind regions like South Asia at 37% and Latin America at 47%.
Even with new tools and fintech solutions popping up to help, the reality is that defaults are causing serious trouble.
TymeBank, for example, saw its credit impairment charges balloon by 20,000% within a year. FairMoney, another fintech, which once reported profits, spiraled into losses as bad loans surged by 138%.
This disturbing trend is not isolated, but showing a larger systemic issue: a growing culture of loan defaults with little to no consequence.
At the heart of the African credit crisis is a lack of accountability. Borrowers fail to repay loans, and the consequences for defaults are weak, if not nonexistent.
This is not just a problem for lenders; it’s unraveling the very fabric of the credit ecosystem.
So, now we have a vicious cycle where access to credit becomes more restricted, interest rates climb, and ethical lending practices become harder to sustain.
The question is no longer just about if credit is available but how the lack of loan default consequences is destroying Africa’s credit ecosystem from the inside out.
First, let’s look at how different African countries are handling loan defaults.
South Africa has one of the more sophisticated systems for addressing loan defaults, especially in the context of its robust credit industry.
Borrowers who default on loans may be placed under debt review, a legal process where their finances are assessed to restructure debt payments based on their ability to pay.
Lenders can also take defaulters to court to repossess assets used for collateral or seek other alternative repayment solutions.
Zimbabwe’s credit system suffers from a weak legal framework that does not adequately penalize loan defaulters. Due to prolonged economic instability, hyperinflation, and weak regulatory enforcement, lenders often struggle to recover debts.
Even when legal proceedings are initiated, the judicial system is slow and bureaucratic, with court cases dragging on for years. So, many banks rely heavily on the goodwill of borrowers to meet their obligations, which has led to rising credit risk and increasing non-performing loans.
In Nigeria, authorities treat loan defaults as a civil matter rather than a criminal offense. Borrowers typically do not face jail time for defaulting on loans, but willful refusal to pay could lead to legal consequences. If a borrower uses fake documents during the loan application process, they could face fraud charges.
But the process can be lengthy and complicated, and many lenders prefer to avoid litigation due to the associated costs and time involved.
One key penalty is reporting defaulters to credit bureaus, which docks their credit score and blacklists them, preventing lenders from offering future loans.
But, the country’s large informal economy and the high unbanked population make it difficult to track defaulters.
Many borrowers still get loans outside the formal banking system, making penalties such as credit bureau blacklisting or account freezing meaningless eventually.
Kenya’s penalty system stands out for its integration of both traditional and digital lending into the credit default framework. Borrowers who default on loans, including those obtained from fintech platforms, can be reported to the Credit Reference Bureau (CRB).
Once defaulters are listed, they are barred from accessing loans from any other financial institution. Banks and digital lenders in Kenya widely use CRB listings, so defaulting on even small, quick loans leads to long-term financial consequences.
Plus, Kenya has taken steps to regulate digital lenders, capping interest rates and imposing guidelines on how they handle defaulters, reflecting the rise of online lending.
Egypt’s loan default consequences are relatively harsh, particularly in cases where checks are used as collateral for loans.
Prior to the amendment of the Commercial law of 1999, writing a bad check, or failing to repay a loan tied to a check, was a criminal offense that carried a mandatory jail sentence of up to three years.
This strict law led banks to rely on post dated checks as collateral for loans, using them as a safeguard against non-payment. The penalty system significantly raised the stakes for borrowers, as the legal consequences were as severe as imprisonment.
But, recent changes have replaced the automatic jail sentence with more flexible penalties. The judiciary now has the discretion to impose either a fine, imprisonment, or both, depending on the case’s circumstances.
A bad check is now only considered a criminal offense if it can be proven that the check was given in bad faith.
Tanzania has tightened the rules on loan defaults, giving lenders more power to go after borrowers who don’t pay up. In the past, banks could only recover the value of the collateral, like a house or land, if a borrower defaulted.
If that didn’t cover the full loan, lenders were stuck with the loss. Not exactly great for business, right?
But in a game-changing ruling, Bank of Africa Tanzania vs. Rose Miago Asea, the Court of Appeal said banks can now go after a borrower’s other assets if the collateral doesn’t cover the loan. So, borrowers are still on the hook for the full debt, plus any interest and penalties, even after they sell their properties.
On the microfinance side, Tanzania has something called group lending, where borrowers are responsible for each other’s loans.
If one person defaults, the rest of the group steps in. It’s like peer pressure with money on the line. And if things really go south, lenders bring in collection agencies to recover the cash, sometimes taking legal action.
As seen in the previous section, African countries struggle with similar issues in handling loan default and consequences: the judicial system offers weak support, court cases drag on for years, and authorities poorly enforce penalties.
Defaults are causing a cycle of distrust between lenders and borrowers that is stifling economic growth and limiting access to much-needed credit.
Here’s how this problem unfolds on a larger scale:
In countries like Zimbabwe, where the enforcement of loan recovery is poor, the NPL ratio has become unsustainable.
When lenders can’t recover loans, it drives up the cost of lending because financial institutions must absorb losses or raise interest rates to cover potential defaults.
It also forces many lenders to tighten credit access, making it more difficult for deserving businesses or individuals to secure loans.
As seen with fintech players like TymeBank and FairMoney, increasing loan defaults can lead to significant financial losses and threaten the sustainability of lending platforms.
Trust is a key component of any healthy credit system. In Nigeria, the introduction of the Global Standing Instruction (GSI) has attempted to improve creditor confidence by allowing banks to recover funds from defaulters with multiple accounts across financial institutions.
But, this measure only applies to commercial banks, leaving many borrowers in the informal or fintech space out of reach.
Since applying penalties are inconsistent, lenders struggle to trust the system, and may refuse to extend credit without strong assurances of repayment.
Distrust not only impacts financial institutions but also trickles down to micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that depend on credit to grow.
Lenders respond to high default rates by raising interest rates and imposing stricter loan approval requirements. This is common in countries like Tanzania, Uganda, and Malawi, where the enforcement of loan penalties is weak, and lenders struggle to recover debts.
As a result, they adopt a more conservative approach, further marginalizing high-risk borrowers like MSMEs and individuals with no formal credit history.
On the other side of the coin, it raises the cost of credit, making it unaffordable for the average borrower and creating a credit gap that is increasingly difficult to bridge.
When lenders tighten approval due to bad debts, they push already marginalized groups further away from getting formal credit.
As a result, the unbanked remain trapped in cycles of poverty and financial exclusion, and makes it harder for them to get the credit they need to grow.
This is especially common in the fintech space, where platforms resort to extreme measures, such as publicly shaming defaulters or harassing borrowers by contacting their phone contacts.
In Kenya, the aggressive debt collection tactics employed by digital lenders such as Tala and Branch have resulted in significant social harm, including cases where individuals have tragically taken their own lives.
The Financial Times reported that at least one suicide has been linked to these predatory lending practices, where borrowers faced intense pressure to repay loans through tactics like debt-shaming.
This practice involves lenders or their collection agents contacting the borrower’s friends, family, or employers to force repayment.
For instance, Dorcas Mazune, a 21-year-old Kenyan borrower, received calls not just to herself but also to her boyfriend, whom she hadn’t listed as a contact, pressuring him to encourage her to pay back the loan.
The result is a deeper breakdown of the credit ecosystem, where both lenders and borrowers operate in fear and distrust.
Without proper systems in place to hold defaulters accountable, the cycle of distrust between lenders and borrowers will continue. The credit gap would only widen and swallow Africa whole, because not only would people suffer, businesses would fade, the economy would recede, and society would collapse.
This article breaks down the factors that determine loan affordability. It explains how to read conditions beyond the headline rate, spot when fees outweigh benefits, and weigh repayment schedules against cash flow or salary cycles.
Anybody ever wonder where bankers go when they hang their suits? What do they do when they retire?
