Should African Countries Consider Establishing Unified Fintech Regulators?

Image Credit: AI-generated illustration created using Nano Banana in Google Gemini

In many African markets, fintech innovation is moving faster than the regulatory structures built to oversee it. Products no longer fit neatly into "payments", "lending", or "investment". A single app may touch the rails of a central bank, a communications authority, and a securities regulator simultaneously, while also adhering to cybersecurity and data protection requirements. 

The result is a familiar tension: 

• Multiple regulators, each acting within mandate 

• Innovators navigating overlapping interpretations 

• Consumers unsure where to seek redress 

• Policymakers balancing stability with innovation 

Nigeria is debating a Bill to establish a dedicated Fintech Regulatory Commission, partly in response to overlapping mandates across existing regulators. Kenya is strengthening coordination between its regulators and recently introduced virtual assets legislation. Across the continent, the same question is emerging: when one app can lend, insure, invest, and move money, who supervises it? 

Some argue that a unified regulator would bring clarity: one licence, one supervisor, one rulebook built for digital products. Others believe existing institutions are fundamentally strong, and that what is needed is better coordination, clearer mandates, and deeper technical capacity within current regulators. 

Both views carry weight. 

But beneath this debate sits a deeper truth: Fintech has outgrown the borders regulators originally drew. And artificial intelligence is dissolving what remains of those borders. 

Imagine you're sick and seven doctors examine you. 

A cardiologist checks your heart. A pulmonologist checks your lungs. A nephrologist checks your kidneys. Each is excellent. Each knows their organ deeply. 

But nobody is looking at how the organs work together. 

When you collapse in the hallway, everyone says: "My part looked fine." 

That's fintech regulation in most African markets today. 

Fintech no longer fits in boxes 

Ten years ago, financial services lived neatly in their lanes. Today they do not. One platform can lend, insure, invest, move foreign exchange, store value, onboard customers, detect fraud, automate compliance, run payroll, and settle payments. All inside one app. 

In many African markets, fintech has shifted from being a niche slice of finance to one of the primary interfaces between people and financial services. 

Artificial intelligence (AI) has entered the field with no respect for institutional boundaries. It is already approving loans, underwriting insurance, detecting fraud, scoring credit, pricing risk, building portfolios, running compliance, and evaluating behaviour. These models cut across every financial function at once. 

This is where having seven separate regulators, each watching their own piece, becomes most risky. AI operates holistically. But regulatory systems in many African countries supervise in slices. In most markets, no single institution is responsible for end-to-end oversight of how AI is used across lending, insurance, investments, data and customer treatment.

What this looks like in practice: Ghana's seven regulators 

Take Ghana as one example. Today it has: 

• A central bank supervising payments and banking 

• An insurance regulator supervising insurance 

• A securities regulator supervising investment 

• A pensions regulator supervising pension 

• A data protection authority focused on privacy 

• A cybersecurity authority focused on resilience 

• A digital standards agency focused on infrastructure 

Seven regulators. No single body with end-to-end oversight.

This isn't a regulatory failure. It's an architectural mismatch. These institutions were designed for a world where banks banked, insurers insured, investment houses invested, pensions stayed pensions, and technology was just a channel. But today's financial platforms combine everything, sometimes without intending to. 

Fintech is water. It flows everywhere. But many of our regulatory systems were built around dams rather than canals; around containment rather than facilitation. 

Having seven regulators watching seven different pieces, with nobody watching how they fit together, is no longer just inefficient. It's becoming a risk to the stability and fairness of the system itself. 

So here's the question worth exploring: Do African markets need unified fintech regulators? If yes, why? If not, what's the alternative? 

What would a unified regulator actually do? What it is, and what it isn't 

A Unified Fintech Regulatory Authority (UFRA) wouldn't replace existing regulators. It would focus on what they don't currently supervise together: fintech as an integrated, AI-driven system that crosses all sectoral boundaries. 

This isn't about creating a mega-regulator that absorbs everything. It's not a loose coordination committee. It's not a small department inside a central bank. It would be a standalone regulator built specifically for AI-driven, cross-sector digital finance. 

So if Ghana, or any African country, chose to build such an authority, what would it actually do? 

1. License fintechs by what they do, not by old categories 

The old labels ("payments", "lending", "insurance", "securities") no longer reflect how digital products work. A unified authority would license based on actual activity: 

• Paytech (moving money) 

• Digital lending (credit) 

• Wealthtech (investments) 

• Insurtech (insurance) 

• Pensiontech (retirement) 

• Regtech (compliance tools) 

• Digital assets (crypto, tokens) 

• Identity and KYC providers (verification) 

• AI-driven financial tools (automated decisions) 

This reduces ambiguity for founders and gives investors clarity about what licence is needed. 

2. Protect consumers in digital-first finance 

Fintech is now the primary interface between consumers and finance in many African markets. A unified authority would focus on how companies treat customers: 

• Pricing and disclosure (no hidden fees) 

• Fair automated decisions (no biased algorithms) 

• Digital redress (quick complaint resolution) 

• Real-time fraud reporting (immediate response) 

• Protection from algorithmic harm (when AI makes bad decisions) 

This is consumer protection designed for mobile-first finance, not branch-based banking. 

3. Supervise AI in financial services: all of it, not just pieces 

This is where a unified authority would matter most. 

Today, if an AI model rejects 80% of women's loan applications but no regulator has the mandate to audit the algorithm for bias, that's a gap. If AI prices insurance based on data patterns no human understands, who ensures it's fair? If investment algorithms make decisions across lending, insurance, and securities simultaneously, who has visibility? 

A unified authority would create: 

• AI governance rules (how models must be managed) 

• Fairness and explainability standards (algorithms must be auditable) 

• Model audit requirements (regular checks for bias) 

• Guardrails for high-risk decisions (extra scrutiny when AI makes big calls) 

This aligns supervision with how AI-driven finance actually works: holistically, not in slices. 

4. Monitor risks that don't fit in the old boxes 

Some fintechs now move more money and influence more decisions than mid-sized banks. But because they're not called "banks," they fall outside traditional oversight. A unified authority could assess system-wide risks emerging outside the traditional banking perimeter. 

5. Work alongside existing regulators, not replace them 

This is critical: A unified fintech regulator would regulate behaviour. This means how companies treat customers, whether products are fair, how algorithms make decisions. It wouldn't regulate the underlying technology infrastructure. 

Infrastructure standards would remain with ICT agencies. Cybersecurity would remain with cybersecurity authorities. Data governance would remain with data protection commissions. Making sure banks, insurers, and pension funds stay financially sound would remain with central banks and sector regulators. 

The unified authority becomes the home for overseeing how digital finance treats customers, how AI makes decisions, and activities that cross multiple sectors at once. Think of it as the traffic controller, while others remain the mechanics. 

Where things stand today 

Many African countries are exploring partial reforms. To my knowledge, none has yet created a fully independent fintech regulator with an explicit AI mandate. If any country chooses this path, it could design a regulator built for AI-powered finance, cross-sector platforms, and real-time infrastructure. 

But whether this becomes a solution or creates new problems depends entirely on how it's built. 

How would you build one without breaking what already works? 

The building analogy 

Even if a unified fintech regulator makes sense in theory, implementation is everything. A new regulator can strengthen the system or strain it. The difference lies in design, sequencing, and governance. 

Think about it like building a house. You wouldn't tear down the foundation while people are still living inside. You'd plan carefully, build the new structure alongside the old, and only move things over when the new rooms are ready. 

Here's how that could work in practice: 

1. Start by mapping what goes where 

Before announcing anything, create a clear public map: 

• Which fintech activities move to the unified authority? 

• What stays with existing regulators? 

• Where do overlaps exist today? 

• Where are digital risks falling between institutions? 

This prevents turf battles and establishes clarity from day one. Everyone knows their role. 

2. Build a strong legal foundation 

A unified authority needs a law that defines: 

• Its scope (what it regulates) 

• Its limits (what it doesn't touch) 

• Coordination duties (how it works with others) 

• AI governance mandate (explicit authority over algorithms) 

• Powers to protect customers and ensure fair competition 

• Independence protections (can't be captured by industry or politics) 

The legislation must regulate functions, not outdated categories. It should say "we regulate digital lending" not "we regulate mobile money operators." 

3. Don't freeze the ecosystem during transition 

Businesses can't stop operating while regulators reorganize. That means: 

• Grandfather existing licences (companies keep operating) 

• Grant provisional licences to new entrants (don't close the door) 

• Keep sandboxes active (safe testing continues) 

• Tell companies exactly when and how migration happens 

The transition should feel like an upgrade, not a reset. 

4. Hire people who understand what they're regulating 

A regulator for AI-driven finance requires different skills than traditional supervision: 

• AI governance and model-risk experts (who understand algorithms) 

• Data scientists and cloud-security analysts (who read code) 

• Specialists in how digital platforms treat customers 

• Product and ecosystem experts (who've built these things) 

Without the right talent, the institution won't match the complexity of what it oversees. You can't regulate AI with people who've only supervised branch banking. 

5. Design it with the people who'll use it 

Founders, banks, telcos, investors, consumer groups, and existing regulators must shape the institution, not watch from a distance. Co-design leads to rules that work in practice, not only on paper. Real engagement builds legitimacy and reduces friction. 

6. Create one clear rulebook 

This is where a unified authority delivers immediate value. Many African markets need a modern rulebook for digital finance that covers: 

• AI fairness and explainability (algorithms must be auditable) 

• Digital redress standards (how customers complain and get resolved) 

• Open APIs and interoperability (systems must talk to each other) 

• Fraud reporting rules (immediate incident management) 

• Data portability standards (customers own their data) 

• Fair treatment of customers (clear pricing, honest disclosure) 

These rules don't exist in one place today, yet the market depends on them. 

7. Communicate constantly 

Founders and investors need predictability. The transition should include: 

• Public timelines (everyone knows what happens when) 

• FAQs (common questions answered clearly) 

• Joint communications (existing regulators and new authority speak together) 

• A unified licensing portal (one place to apply) 

• One complaints channel (customers know where to go) 

In regulation, clarity is confidence. 

8. Align with regional ambitions 

A unified regulator positions a country to lead regional integration under the African Continental Free Trade Area. This is where one licence could eventually work across multiple African countries. 

This includes: 

• Cross-border licensing (approval in one country makes it easier to operate in others) 

• Shared fraud intelligence (countries warn each other about scams) 

• Regional AI governance collaboration (common standards) 

• Interoperable payments and data (money moves seamlessly) 

This strengthens early movers as continental hubs. 

The goal: Match the system to the reality 

A unified authority isn't a switch you flip. It's a phased architectural redesign. The goal isn't a new institution for its own sake. The goal is a regulatory system that matches the speed, scale, and complexity of digital finance and AI. 

What would this mean for the people actually building things? 

What this means in practice 

Regulation isn't abstract. It shows up in product roadmaps, deal timelines, launch cycles, and customer trust. Here's how founders and operators could experience a unified regulator in practice: 

For founders: Clarity and speed 

One approval process, not seven: Today, one product can touch multiple regulators, each with its own interpretation, timeline, and application requirements. A unified authority means one supervisor, one licensing pathway, one set of expectations, one compliance clock. For startups, speed isn't a luxury. It's survival. 

Clear answers to "which licence do I need?": Founders across the continent regularly ask: Are we under the central bank or the telecoms regulator? Is this payments or lending? Do we need securities approval? A unified authority would classify companies by function, not legacy categories. Predictable guidance for new products. 

No more conflicting instructions: With several regulators involved, companies sometimes receive overlapping or contradictory directives. A unified authority provides one rulebook, one interpretation of fairness, one standard for disclosures, one view on algorithmic decisions. Consistency is critical for scaling. 

For the product: Better supervision 

Regulators who understand the products they're supervising: Founders often struggle with regulators who supervise based on how banking worked in 1995. A unified authority staffed with data scientists, AI governance experts, and people who've built platforms means supervision becomes aligned with how digital finance actually works. 

Better protection for customers: Today, when customers have issues, complaints can bounce across agencies. A unified authority offers one digital-first complaint channel, clear rules for automated decisions, enforceable fairness standards, quicker resolution. Better customer protection builds trust. Trust builds adoption. 

A level playing field: Founders often encounter stalled API integrations, discriminatory pricing, exclusivity barriers. A unified regulator with powers to ensure fair competition can enforce open-API principles, fair access to payment rails, non-discriminatory pricing, platform neutrality. This unlocks growth for smaller firms and new entrants. 

For growth: Confidence and scale 

Clearer environment for investment: Investors value predictability. A unified regulator signals reduced regulatory uncertainty, clearer risk assessments, smoother cross-border scalability, stronger consumer safeguards. This can strengthen deal flow and lower perceived risk premiums. 

Easier regional expansion: If a country establishes an early unified authority with an AI mandate, it could become a reference model for continental harmonization. This means smoother licensing across borders, easier operations in multiple countries, alignment with future regional rules. Founders gain a clearer path to scale. 

Regulation shapes what founders can build. A well-designed unified authority could bring clarity to innovators, confidence to investors, fairness to consumers, and predictability to ecosystems, not only in one country, but across a connected African digital economy. 

This is a conversation, not a conclusion 

I've laid out one possible path: what a unified fintech regulator could do, how it might be built, and what it would mean for the ecosystem. But I don't claim this is the only answer, or even necessarily the right one. 

The case for better coordination within existing structures is strong. The case for building new capacity in current regulators is equally valid. The risks of getting implementation wrong (creating confusion, diluting expertise, slowing innovation) are real. 

What I do believe is that the question can no longer be ignored. Fintech has outgrown the regulatory architecture we built for it. AI is accelerating that divergence. Whether the answer is a new institution, deeper reform of existing ones, or something else entirely, the conversation must happen now. 

If you work in fintech, regulation, policy, or simply use mobile money, I'm curious: 

• Does this make sense? 

• Where am I wrong? 

• What am I missing? 

• If you're in Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, how does this map to your market? 

The best outcomes emerge from honest debate, not settled views. 

Let's have that debate.