6 hours ago
Afreximbank downgrade dispute raises questions on loan categorisation
African Union's African Peer Review Mechanism has challenged Fitch Ratings' downgrade of the African Export‑Import Bank, arguing the move rests on a misinterpretation of its sovereign loan portfolio. On 4 June, Fitch lowered Afreximbank's long‑term foreign‑currency issuer rating from BBB to BBB‑—a notch above junk—with a negative outlook. The agency attributed the downgrade to elevated credit risk, citing an estimated non‑performing loan ratio of 7.1 %, primarily due to sovereign exposures to Ghana, South Sudan and Zambia classified as NPLs.
The APRM asserts that Fitch's classification is flawed and inconsistent with Afreximbank's own disclosure of an NPL ratio of 2.44 % as of end‑March. The AU‑established body emphasises the bank's status as a multilateral lender created under a 1993 treaty, which binds member governments—including Ghana and Zambia—as signatories, shareholders and founding members. APRM contends such loans are grounded in intergovernmental cooperation rather than standard commercial terms, so treating them as NPLs misrepresents their nature.
Fitch defended its methodology, stating that its supranational rating decisions adhere to globally consistent and publicly available criteria, and highlighting that their analysis clearly identified rating drivers and sensitivities. The agency maintains sovereign exposures showing delayed repayments meet its threshold for classification as non‑performing, irrespective of legal structures or treaties. In that sense, the downgrade aligns with accepted analytical standards.
ADVERTISEMENT
APRM's critique zeroes in on that threshold. It argues that sovereign repayment negotiations are routine diplomatic engagements, not signs of default. It remains concerned that Fitch's decision conflates financial dialogue with credit impairment. The body has formally called on Fitch, Afreximbank and other African institutions to convene technical consultations and reassess the rating, emphasising the importance of contextually intelligent credit assessments.
Beyond the immediate dispute, this episode resonates with a broader continental debate over the relevance and fairness of global credit‑rating frameworks applied to African multilaterals. Africa's longstanding concerns that Western rating methodologies fail to grasp local realities and may unfairly inflate borrowing costs have sparked momentum for alternative mechanisms. Among these, an Africa‑led credit‑rating agency is under development, envisaged to begin operations by September 2025, aimed at providing sovereign ratings that reflect regional economic and institutional contexts.
Central to the debate is Afreximbank's evolving lending strategy. Under outgoing president Benedict Okey Oramah, the Cairo‑based lender has aggressively expanded its footprint, increasingly financing private sector projects across the continent and taking calculated sovereign exposure. Supporting growth in under‑served markets like Zimbabwe and Nigeria, the bank grew its asset base from around US$7 billion in 2015 to approximately US$40 billion in 2024, with deposits rising to US$37 billion.
That growth has attracted scrutiny. Fitch has highlighted what it sees as elevated concentration of corporate and sovereign risk, pointing to an NPL ratio that exceeds its internal threshold. Observers note that up to 92 % of Afreximbank's lending is directed at commercial businesses, and certain sovereign loans carry interest rates as high as 6.875 % over benchmark rates—much higher than traditional development finance institutions.
Proponents of the APRM's position, including lead credit‑ratings expert Misheck Mutize, argue that supplementary indicators such as capital adequacy, collateral density and profitability should carry mitigating weight. Mutize points to a strong equity ratio of 19 %, risk‑weighted capital at 21 %, internal capital generation through profits, and loan collateral cover for 84 % of the portfolio. These factors, he suggests, are downplayed in the rating downgrade despite being explicitly acknowledged in Fitch's own analytic framework. He warns that over‑reliance on contested NPL figures can breach the methodology's balance principles.
ADVERTISEMENT
Not everyone supports APRM's framing. Analysts note that countries like Zambia officially halted repayments to Afreximbank in 2021, and South Sudan failed to honour its obligations, prompting legal recourse in London. Zambia's treasury has openly stated its debt will be restructured. Against this backdrop, Fitch's interpretation that certain sovereign debt has become non‑performing appears defensible under global standards.
This dispute underscores a tension: Afreximbank's assertive growth strategy has boosted its developmental reach and institutional clout, yet it must reconcile that dynamism with risk and transparency expectations imposed by global credit agencies. With Oramah set to step down later this month, the new president will face a pivotal choice: maintain aggressive expansion as the bank charts an independent path, or recalibrate operations to conform more closely with multilateral development bank norms—a course change that could preserve borrowing benefits but limit growth prerogatives.
Beyond institutional implications, the outcome has broader financial consequences. A downgrade to BBB‑ tightens Afreximbank's borrowing costs, heightens the risk premium for countries swayed by its lending, and complicates its mission to finance intra‑continental trade. That may squeeze African exporters and traders relying on the bank's funding.
Policy stakeholders are paying attention. The APRM's call for dialogue and transparency signals a pushback against the perceived hold of Western agencies over African financial destiny. Meanwhile, the African Development Bank is developing a Continental Financial Stability Mechanism that may borrow under a regional rating—another step towards financial sovereignty.
