×
Tech

“Data is the collateral”: Sparkle CEO Uzoma Dozie on fixing Nigeria’s SME lending blind spot

Uzoma Dozie wants banks to rethink SME lending with AI

Speaking on the sidelines of AFIS 2026 in Luanda, Angola, Uzoma Dozie, the former Diamond Bank chief andSparkle MFB CEO, argues that African banking is stuck in a collateral trap, explains why digital banks must move beyond one-to-one payments, and details how AI can reduce the cost of SME lending. GODFREY GEORGE reports.

Across Nigeria’s banking industry, small enterprises and mass-affluent individuals account for a substantial share of the deposit base that funds commercial balance sheets. Yet, when those same small businesses apply for credit, they receive less than 1% of total bank lending.

For Uzoma Dozie, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Sparkle Microfinance Bank, this disparity captures why capital is failing to support the real economy.

Speaking to TechCabal at the Africa Financial Industry Summit (AFIS) in Luanda, where the central theme was “Making Capital Count”, the veteran banker argued that conventional lenders are held back by an outdated obsession with physical collateral, locking out the very businesses driving national employment and gross domestic product.

“Capital tends to flow towards areas of certainty, even though every investment carries some level of risk,” Dozie said. “What drives capital, particularly from a banking perspective, is trust. Take big businesses and large corporations: their accounts are audited and verified by professionals, so banks can lend based on information they trust.”

“But when you move down to small businesses and individuals, you are looking at the person. You may understand that they have a business, but you do not have sufficient information about that business. The bank either decides not to lend or lends at a price that reflects the perceived risk.”

To break this impasse, Dozie argues that the definition of collateral must be completely overhauled through transactional data.

“Every small business generates data. Every transaction is data,” Dozie said. “If we see data as information that can generate insights, we can use it to make credit decisions. For me, that is part of making capital count: changing our mindset about what constitutes collateral for small businesses and scaling lending by examining cash flows and business data. In some cases, this could even be less risky than traditional collateral-based lending.”

Moving beyond buzzwords

Dozie, who led Diamond Bank before its merger with Access Bank, rejects the industry’s rush to adopt superficial digital labels.

To him, technology in banking is not a recent novelty but a continuation of second-generation banking reforms that introduced automated teller machines (ATMs), Internet portals, and mobile banking applications to improve customer convenience.

Licenced as a microfinance bank, Sparkle, he noted, was designed to apply those lessons to segments that traditional retail banking fails to serve efficiently.

“When I hear people talk about wanting to become a digital bank, I think we have created names and buzzwords without really looking beneath the surface,” Dozie observed. 

“The difference between our service model and traditional personal banking is that we do not have people involved in every customer interaction. We do not rely on account officers to deliver our services. You cannot bank millions of Nigerians using a purely human-touch model. There is a limit to the consistency, repeatability, and operational efficiency you can achieve that way.”

Rather than competing directly for the unbanked mass market or chasing standard retail transactions, Sparkle targets mass-affluent individuals and small enterprises whose economic activities intersect with the broader population.

“An affluent individual in Nigeria probably has four or five people they pay, including people who run small businesses,” Dozie explained. “On the small-business side, it was never just about providing a bank account. A bank account is a given because every business needs one. What was important to us was providing business support services.

“We built these services to capture business data. Once we capture that data, we can use it to generate intelligence about the business, make better decisions, and help the business access credit or even connect with people interested in investing in it.”

Rethinking financial inclusion

Dozie also challenged the way the financial sector evaluates financial inclusion, cautioning that tallying the number of registered bank accounts can create a misleading impression of progress. 

In an economy where an estimated 100 million people live below the poverty line, an account without an economic foundation remains largely ornamental.

“If we do not solve the problems of identity and social inclusion, financial inclusion will not happen,” Dozie said. “A bank account is useful for making and receiving payments, as well as storing money. But if you have 100 million people living below the poverty line, financial inclusion cannot simply be about opening bank accounts for them.”

Meaningful inclusion, Dozie argued, requires structural integration where government social support—ranging from healthcare and insurance to emergency relief and education—is channelled directly through formal banking rails, giving citizens a clear reason to use an account.

At the enterprise level, inclusion hinges on simplifying operational cash flows. Small businesses must pay staff, manage inventory, and disburse wages, while households must pay domestic staff like security guards and gardeners.

This operational reality has shaped Sparkle’s transaction focus. While many digital banks concentrate on individual, peer-to-peer (one-to-one) transfers, Sparkle has prioritised collective and multi-party flows: one-to-many payments, payroll schedules, and batch transfers.

“Anyone can facilitate one-to-one transactions,” Dozie noted. “But one-to-many, collective payments, and many-to-one transactions are areas where Sparkle specialises. If you look at what we offer, you will see that it is quite different from what other players are doing.”

Conversational services and cheaper credit

On artificial intelligence, Dozie dismissed the notion that the technology is merely speculative, pointing to practical deployments across Sparkle’s marketing, customer engagement, and credit operations.

At the interface level, conversational AI allows users to communicate in their preferred format and check account balances directly, stripping out administrative costs that previously required separate software tools or customer service staff.

For commercial borrowers, machine learning algorithms analyse internal cash flows, matching payment patterns against market dynamics to build a more accurate financial profile than traditional paper statements permit.

“Internally, AI allows us to use customers’ cash flows to identify insights and correlations between their payments, their markets, and their business activities,” Dozie said. “We can then use that information to make better credit decisions. This helps us reduce the cost of lending and potentially offer credit at lower interest rates than would ordinarily be possible through traditional lending models.”

Dozie added that this analytical capability is also available to merchants, providing them with insights into their operational performance and customer behaviour.

“They give us access to their data, and we use it to provide insights that help them make better decisions,” Dozie said. “At the same time, we use that information to make better decisions about how we serve them and grow alongside their businesses. For us, it is not just a buzzword. We are only scratching the surface.”

§

After two decades of false starts, the International Finance Corporation has selected 15 agritech companies across the continent, backing them with equity while deploying portfolio guarantees to link them directly to the balance sheets of nearly 200 commercial banks.

For the past two decades, the quest to modernise African agriculture through technology has been littered with failed pilots, undercapitalised startups, and commercial lenders unwilling to venture beyond urban corporate headquarters. Yet, with the continent importing an estimated $90 billion in staple food commodities annually—a reliance that directly fuels currency depreciation and sticky inflation—the pressure to industrialise domestic food production has shifted from a development ambition into a macroeconomic imperative.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Africa Financial Industry Summit (AFIS) in Luanda, Aliou Maiga, Director of the Financial Institutions Group for Africa at the International Finance Corporation (IFC), revealed that the private-sector lending arm of the World Bank Group is rolling out a continental framework designed to solve agricultural finance once and for all.

The strategy marks a departure from the venture-capital model that previously pushed agritech startups to take on balance-sheet lending risk. Instead, the IFC is positioning agritech companies as digital origination and field-management engines, while channelling commercial bank liquidity into rural smallholder value chains backed by IFC risk-sharing guarantees.

“We have been looking for solutions in this space for about 20 years,” Maiga explained to TechCabal on Wednesday. “We explored the possibilities back then, but the technology was not sufficiently developed. We tried again about 10 years ago, but the conditions still weren't right. This time, we have identified 15 agritech companies across Africa, with coverage spanning much of the continent.”

Under this tripartite model, the IFC provides direct equity investment to these 15 vetted agritech firms to help them complete product development and achieve commercial scale. Rather than forcing these startups to raise expensive debt to lend directly to farmers—a practice that has strained balance sheets across the African tech ecosystem—the IFC connects them directly to its continental network of nearly 200 commercial banks and institutional lenders.

TC DATA LAB / AGRITECH FINANCE

IFC is changing how agricultural technology companies connect African farmers to finance. Explore how the model shifts lending away from startup balance sheets and towards commercial banks, supported by equity investment and risk-sharing guarantees.

15Agritech companies identified by IFC

~200Institutions in IFC’s wider lending network

20Years of attempts to develop a scalable solution

01 / THE FINANCING SHIFT

The startup no longer has to be the bank

In one earlier approach, agritech startups borrowed capital and lent directly to farmers. IFC’s proposed framework separates the technology provider from the lender. Switch between the models.

EARLIER MODEL / STARTUP-LED LENDING

External fundingDebt or investment capital raised by the startup

↓Startup secures funding

Agritech startup Sources farmers, manages operations and carries direct lending exposure

↓Startup finances farmers

Smallholder farmersReceive financing and agricultural services

THE PRESSURE POINT Lending risk and the need to raise loan capital can strain a startup’s balance sheet and limit its scale.

This is a simplified illustration of startup-led agricultural lending, not a claim that every earlier agritech or IFC programme used exactly this structure.

IFC MODEL / SEPARATED ROLES

IFC Equity for selected agritechs + portfolio risk-sharing guarantees for participating lenders

↓Equity support

15 agritech firms Farmer origination, risk data and field operations

↓Risk-sharing support

Commercial banks Lend from their own balance sheets

THE CONNECTION Agritechs identify and support farmers; participating banks make and fund lending decisions. IFC guarantees share specified risks.

↓Bank credit + field-level support

Smallholder farmers Access to potential financing, agricultural advice and community-based field agents

Important: IFC’s nearly 200 financial institutions form a wider potential lending network. The number of banks participating in this specific agritech programme has not been disclosed.

02 / THE FOUR PARTICIPANTS

Everyone has a different job

Select a participant to see who provides the capital, who originates farmers, who carries lending exposure and who receives support.

EQUITY + RISK SHARING

IFC: making the model investable

IFC provides direct equity investment to selected agritech companies, helping them develop products and expand their operations.

Separately, portfolio guarantees can cover an agreed portion of eligible lender losses. They do not necessarily eliminate the bank’s risk or guarantee every loan.

TECHNOLOGY + FIELD OPERATIONS

Agritech: finding and supporting farmers

The 15 selected companies are intended to identify farmers, gather agricultural data, help assess risks and coordinate last-mile services through local agents.

Instead of financing the entire loan portfolio themselves, they can focus on technology and operational delivery.

CREDIT + BALANCE SHEET

Commercial banks: providing the loans

Participating banks provide credit directly from their balance sheets, using information and origination support supplied by agritech partners.

The bank remains a lender exposed to credit risk. IFC’s guarantee may absorb a defined share of eligible losses under the agreed terms.

THE END BENEFICIARY

Farmers: receiving capital and guidance

Smallholders may gain access to formal credit alongside practical support delivered through local agents and connected devices.

IFC says yields have increased by as much as 50% in some cases. That is an upper-end example, not an average or a forecast for participating farmers.

03 / FOLLOW THE FARMER

How a smallholder could access bank financing

Follow a hypothetical farmer through the model, from first contact with a field agent to agricultural support. Tap any step or use the next and back controls.

STEP 01 / 05

A field agent reaches the farmer

A community-based agent visits a smallholder and uses a connected device to gather information about the farm and its needs.

Why it matters: rural farmers may lack reliable connectivity, digital literacy or direct access to conventional banking channels.

STEP 02 / 05

The agritech builds a risk picture

Agricultural data, field observations and farmer information help the agritech assess production conditions and support credit origination.

The aim is to make rural lending decisions better informed, not to guarantee that every farmer will qualify for credit.

STEP 03 / 05

A commercial bank considers the loan

A participating bank can use the origination information to evaluate the farmer and, if approved, provide financing from its own balance sheet.

The critical shift: the agritech does not need to raise and deploy all the loan capital itself.

STEP 04 / 05

IFC shares eligible lending risk

The portfolio guarantee is an arrangement between IFC and a participating lender. It can absorb an agreed share of qualifying credit losses.

This is a financing safeguard, not necessarily a separate payment to the farmer or a step that happens after each loan is approved.

Guarantee coverage, pricing, eligibility and loss-sharing percentages have not been disclosed in the story.

STEP 05 / 05

The farmer receives continuing support

Field agents can help farmers interpret soil conditions, respond to weather changes, schedule fertiliser use and monitor crop health.

The intended outcome is higher productivity and more sustainable agricultural lending relationships. Results depend on implementation and local conditions.

IFC cites yield increases of up to 50% in some cases, but has not supplied a programme-wide average in this account.

THE BIG SHIFT

The IFC model separates three functions that were previously concentrated in some agritech startups: technology and farmer origination, credit funding, and risk sharing. Whether this translates into scalable agricultural lending will depend on bank participation, farmer outcomes and the actual terms of the guarantees.

What is a portfolio guarantee?

A portfolio guarantee is a risk-sharing arrangement covering a defined group of eligible loans. If qualifying borrowers default, the guarantor may absorb an agreed portion of the resulting losses.

For a bank, this can make lending to unfamiliar or underserved sectors more manageable. The bank still needs to assess borrowers, administer loans and comply with the guarantee agreement.

What we don’t know: The story does not disclose the guarantee percentage, investment size, number of participating banks, total credit to be deployed or expected number of farmers reached.

How to read this interactive

Source: TechCabal interview with Aliou Maiga, Director of IFC’s Financial Institutions Group for Africa, at AFIS in Luanda.

15 agritech firms: The number IFC says it has identified for its new framework.

Nearly 200 institutions: IFC’s broader commercial bank and institutional lending network, not confirmed programme participants.

Earlier approach: A generalised illustration of startup-led agricultural lending.

Farmer journey: A hypothetical sequence based on the operating model described in the interview. It is not a documented individual loan.

Risk allocation: Actual guarantee terms and lender obligations may differ between agreements.

The agritech firms originate the farmers, assess agricultural risk, and manage the last-mile operational relationships. The commercial banks then disburse credit directly from their balance sheets, with IFC portfolio guarantees absorbing downside risk until lenders build their own underwriting confidence in the agricultural sector.

The macroeconomic motivation behind this capital engineering is urgent. African countries currently spend roughly $90 billion each year to import basic food staples such as rice, wheat, and sugar—commodities that could readily be cultivated on their own soil.

“Africa imports approximately $90 billion worth of food commodities, including rice, wheat and sugar. Yet, much of what we import could potentially be produced locally,” Maiga said. “The idea behind our work is to help Africa address its food security challenges, create jobs and increase productivity. Producing more food locally also reduces dependence on imports and can help moderate inflation because locally produced food is often cheaper. Ultimately, this has implications for interest rates as well, because inflation is one of the factors that influences interest rates.”

By dampening food inflation, which carries the largest weight in consumer price baskets across Sub-Saharan Africa, domestic agricultural productivity directly eases the monetary pressure that has forced central banks to maintain punishingly high benchmark interest rates.

Achieving this productivity, however, requires confronting the physical realities of the African smallholder. Unlike manufacturing or financial services, which have rapidly automated, African farming remains dominated by dispersed, rural smallholders who suffer from severe information deficits and low technical capability.

Maiga dismissed the notion that software alone can bridge this divide. In agriculture, pure-play digital platforms fail because rural producers cannot be served exclusively through smartphone applications. Instead, the IFC’s portfolio companies rely on a hybrid model that blends mobile technology with physical community agent networks.

“Our approach is to combine technology with agents on the ground, usually recruited from the communities where farmers operate,” Maiga observed. “These agents are physically present and equipped with devices that enable them to identify and address farmers’ day-to-day challenges. Through this approach, we can improve agricultural productivity and yields. In some cases, yields have increased by as much as 50%.”

These field agents use connected handheld devices to conduct soil diagnostics, track weather disruptions, schedule fertiliser application, and monitor crop health, translating agronomic data into actionable guidance for farmers.

Beyond technology and commercial bank balance sheets, Maiga emphasised that the agritech sector cannot scale without regulatory alignment from national and regional governments.

The IFC is actively integrating its agritech framework into broader state initiatives, including a flagship agricultural programme launched with the Nigerian government, as well as formal agreements being negotiated with sub-national administrations across key markets.

These sovereign agreements are designed to establish specific production targets, guarantee access to infrastructure, and remove regulatory bottlenecks across the entire value chain.

Once these state commitments are secured, the IFC coordinates with farmer cooperatives, agritech platforms, and commercial lenders to disburse funds and systematically measure the impact on yields.

For Africa’s agritech sector, which has struggled through successive funding winters and tech downturns, the shift in institutional backing signals a strategic maturation.

By pairing field-level technology with the balance sheets of mainstream commercial banks, the IFC is attempting to convert smallholder agriculture from an uninsurable charity case into an investable, productive commercial engine.

Web hosting by Somee.com