By 
A segment of Point of Sale (PoS) operators in Nigeria has voiced their protest against the recently implemented increased service charges in the country. The Association of Mobile Money and Bank Agents in Nigeria had announced the new charges in June, citing the need to ensure the survival of PoS operators.
Under the new framework, customers depositing amounts ranging from N1,000 to N50,000 will incur service charges ranging from N100 to N600, depending on the deposit amount. Similarly, withdrawals ranging from N1,000 to N20,000 will carry service charges ranging from N100 to N800.
However, the Concerned POS Operators in Nigeria, a group representing PoS operators, has criticized the fee hike, deeming it excessive and detrimental to the public. The group’s chairman, Kayode Salako, stated that the increased charges would exacerbate the financial burdens faced by many Nigerians.
Salako expressed the group’s opposition to the new price list, emphasizing the adverse impact it would have on Nigerians already grappling with the removal of subsidies and other policies affecting their livelihoods. He suggested that the association should focus on advocating for improved conditions for PoS operators and pursuing government support to alleviate the challenges they face.
The Concerned POS Operators in Nigeria proposed an alternative service charge structure for its members, recommending lower fees for various deposit and withdrawal ranges. They urged the Association of Mobile Money and Bank Agents in Nigeria to consider adopting this proposed fee structure.
Furthermore, Salako called on the Central Bank of Nigeria to review its cashless policy and increase the withdrawal limits for PoS operators and mobile money agents through various channels, including ATMs.
As the debate over the increased charges continues, the PoS operators remain in solidarity with Nigerians during these trying times and believe that additional financial burdens would only exacerbate the current hardships.
The operators’ concerns highlight the ongoing tensions between regulatory measures, financial institutions, and the public, underscoring the need for a balanced approach that addresses the interests of all stakeholders.
Comments