On November 8, 2024, Uganda’s Parliament enacted a law capping interest rates for moneylenders at 2.8 per cent per month and 33.6 per cent per annum. Lately, interest rate caps have become a popular policy tool in several African countries. This tool is currently used by at least 17 African countries to shield borrowers from exploitative practices by moneylenders.
However, such restrictions often lead to unintended consequences, including limited financial innovation, increased informal lending, and reduced credit availability for small businesses and individuals perceived as high-risk. To address these problems, governments should promote financial literacy, encourage investment in alternative lending models, and adopt tiered interest rate structures.
Interest rate caps, while aimed at protecting borrowers, can undermine economic freedom by restricting credit access for high-risk and marginalized groups. Standardising rates without considering borrower risk profiles discourages lenders from serving vulnerable populations like rural entrepreneurs and small-scale traders, which worsens financial exclusion.
In Kenya, for example, the Banking (Amendment) Act of 2016 capped the lending rate at four percentage points above the central bank rate, while the deposit rate was set at 70 per cent of the same rate. Commercial banks, constrained by the cap, opted to focus on lending to large, established businesses instead of small-scale traders or rural entrepreneurs. By 2019, Kenya repealed the law due to its detrimental impact on financial inclusion.
Financial literacy needed
Many borrowers in Africa lack an understanding of loan terms, risks, and the long-term implications of borrowing. The level of financial literacy in African countries like South Africa (42 per cent), Tanzania (40 per cent), Kenya (38 per cent), and Nigeria (26 per cent) lag significantly behind those of European nations, where literacy ranges between 65 per cent and 75 per cent.
READ MORE: Mending the Slow and Uneven Path to Gender Equity in Sub-Saharan Africa
Promoting financial literacy is a key step towards financial stability and inclusion. Governments in Africa should implement community-based financial education programmes to provide more information on lending practices, enabling borrowers to make informed decisions and negotiate better terms.
Rwanda, for instance, has taken a different approach by avoiding strict interest rate caps and instead fostering financial literacy programmes and promoting competition among financial institutions. Empowering individuals with knowledge about financial products and the dangers of over-indebtedness could reduce reliance on laws and regulations that punish moneylenders.
Financial exclusion
Interest rate caps worsen the financial exclusion gap. In this regard, credit unions, cooperatives, and fintech platforms have emerged as viable options for offering affordable and inclusive credit solutions.
In Nigeria, fintech companies like Carbon – formerly known as ‘Paylater’ – and Flutterwave provide low-cost, short-term loans through mobile platforms, bypassing traditional banks and moneylenders.
These models emphasise community-based trust, innovative technology, and lower administrative costs, making them ideal for addressing the needs of underserved populations. Governments should encourage investing in these alternative lending models by offering tax incentives for investments in such models and establishing clear and consistent financial regulations for the benefits of such alternative lending models.
READ MORE: Why Nigeria’s New University Admissions Policy is Backward and Anti-Human Rights
By implementing these measures, governments can create a supportive environment for alternative lending models, thereby bridging the gap left by restrictive interest rate caps. Increasing investment in such models can drive fairer lending practices and ensure that traditional moneylenders are not the sole providers of credit.
Driving moneylenders out
Overly restrictive interest rate caps drive moneylenders out of the market, particularly for high-risk borrowers. Adopting a tiered interest rate structure that aligns with market realities could mitigate the risks of money lenders leaving the market.
Rather than a blanket cap, lenders should be allowed to charge slightly higher rates for riskier loans while adhering to the cap for standard borrowers. This approach balances the need to protect borrowers from exploitation with maintaining incentives for lenders to serve diverse market segments.
Countries like Kenya have successfully implemented flexible frameworks that allow lenders to manage risk while safeguarding borrowers’ interests.
Interest rate caps must not come at the expense of economic freedom and financial innovation. Policymakers should rather aim for a balanced approach that combines borrower protection with measures to preserve credit access and financial inclusion.
READ MORE: Education Policy in Tanzania: Why We’re Producing Unemployable Graduates
A progressive credit system requires collaboration between regulators, lenders, and civil society to meet the financial needs of people from different backgrounds. With the right policies, African countries can safeguard economic freedom while protecting their most vulnerable citizens.
The future of Africa’s financial sector could be one where fairness, freedom, and innovation coexist harmoniously.
Calvin Kahiigi is a writing fellow at African Liberty, a U.S.-based think tank focused on advancing individual freedom, peace, and prosperity in Africa. He can be reached at ckahiigi@studentsforliberty.org. He can be reached at cegbanubi@studentsforliberty.org. The opinions expressed here are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Chanzo. If you are interested in publishing in this space, please contact our editors at editor@thechanzo.com.
One Response
Nothing says “freedom, peace, and prosperity in Africa” like a “US-based think tank” financed by the Koch Brothers!
Even the less than impartial opinion of the African Bankers Magazine cited in the article notes that the rate cap “won wide popularity” and needed “years of lobbying” and “simple arm-twisting” by the IMF to repeal—”much to the relief of bankers” and observed with worry by the very SMEs the repeal was supposed to benefit.
With Kenya being sited as an example, we could ask what actually was the effect of the cap on Kenya’s GDP?
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/KEN/kenya/gdp-growth-rate
As hard as attribution is, it’s more likely to be positive. Growth rates had been backsliding slightly up to 2017, then picked up by almost 2% before the pandemic slump.
It’s also quite funny to cite fintechs “provid[ing] low-cost, short-term loans through mobile platforms” as an example of the kind of innovation stifled by interest rate caps when the cap by its very definition prohibits only loans that are _not_ low cost. Furthermore, conventional economic wisdom would suggest lenders would be more motivated to find innovative technologies to cut unproductive administration costs in an environment where they compete for small margins instead of milking desperate families whose breadwinner has fallen sick for all they’re worth and then some.
What definitely won’t benefit African nations’ economies is “tax incentives for investments” in platforms that put customers last and encourage or at least turn a blind eye to fraud, money laundering and corruption such as the lauded Flutterwave: https://businessverge.ng/flutterwave-fraud-case-highlights-rising-cybersecurity-threats-in-nigerias-fintech-landscape/