By Charity Wudiri Ishaya
The message looked official. It carried the name of OPay and contained the kind of warning capable of making customers panic: the fintech was allegedly preparing to shut down its operations in Nigeria, with customers supposedly advised to take action with their funds.
For a company used by Nigerians for transfers, payments and other financial transactions, such a message could easily trigger anxiety. But there was one problem: the notice was fake.
OPay moved to dismiss the claim and reassure its customers that it had no plan to suspend or terminate its operations in Nigeria. At a town hall in Lagos on September 2, 2026, the company’s Chief Operating Officer and Chief Technology Officer, Dotun Adekunle, reiterated that OPay remained fully operational and that the purported shutdown message did not originate from the company.
The incident did not end with a denial. OPay said it was working with security agencies, including the Department of State Services and the Nigeria Police Force, to investigate the circulation of the false information. The company’s Chief Legal Counsel, Akinfolabi Rokosu, said evidence had been provided to assist investigators in identifying those responsible.
What happened to OPay is more than another social-media rumour. It is a demonstration of how quickly financial misinformation can move in an environment where information travels through phones, messaging applications and social-media platforms almost instantaneously.
A person receives a message on WhatsApp and forwards it to a group. Another person screenshots it and posts it on Facebook. Someone else records a video discussing it on TikTok or Instagram. Within a short period, an unverified claim can appear in several different places, creating the impression that it must be true because so many people are talking about it.
But circulation is not confirmation.
The OPay episode shows why financial misinformation can be particularly dangerous. When false information concerns entertainment or celebrity gossip, the immediate consequences may be limited. But when the subject is people’s money, a false claim can influence financial decisions.
A customer who believes that a financial platform is about to shut down may attempt to move money, withdraw funds or warn friends and relatives to do the same. Even when the institution is perfectly stable, the rumour can create fear simply because people believe they have been given advance information about a possible financial crisis.
This is not the first time Nigerians have encountered false claims about the stability or operations of financial institutions. In February 2023, the Central Bank of Nigeria publicly debunked a misleading voice note claiming that the apex bank planned to shut down some deposit money banks. The CBN described the claim as false and urged the public to disregard it.
The circumstances were different from the OPay incident, but the underlying danger was similar. A false message about a financial institution can exploit public uncertainty and encourage people to react before they have verified the information.
The speed at which such claims spread is partly a consequence of the way Nigerians now consume information. News is no longer received only from newspapers, radio and television. Social-media platforms and messaging applications have become important routes through which people encounter information about politics, business, banking and everyday life.
The Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2026 describes Nigeria as having a highly digital audience and a rapidly expanding social-media environment. Digital platforms increasingly influence how people encounter and share news, meaning that information can move between professional journalism, influencers, online personalities and ordinary users with remarkable speed.
The 2025 edition of the report also found that 73 per cent of respondents across Africa were concerned about their ability to distinguish what is real from what is fake when consuming news online. In Nigeria, 58 per cent identified online influencers and personalities as a significant potential source of misinformation or disinformation.
The challenge is therefore not simply that false information exists. It is that false information can be packaged in a form that looks believable.
A fake financial notice can use an institution’s name, logo, colours and formal language. It can resemble an official circular. It can contain dates and instructions. It can even be accompanied by a familiar-looking signature. For someone encountering the message on a small phone screen, the difference between an authentic announcement and a fabricated one may not immediately be obvious.
This is where verification becomes important.
If a message claims that a bank or fintech is shutting down, customers should not rely on the forwarded message itself. They should check the institution’s official website and verified social-media accounts and, where necessary, check the relevant regulator. For banks and other regulated financial institutions, the Central Bank of Nigeria is an important source of authoritative information. For matters involving investments and securities, the Securities and Exchange Commission provides regulatory information and warnings.
The SEC has repeatedly warned Nigerians about fraudulent investment schemes promoted online. The Commission has particularly cautioned the public about unregistered investment platforms and misleading financial promotions circulated through social-media platforms and messaging applications.
The problem becomes even more serious when a message creates a sense of urgency. “Withdraw your money now.” “Your account will be closed.” “Do not wait until tomorrow.”
Such language can discourage people from taking the time to investigate. Fear creates urgency, and urgency can reduce critical thinking. The recipient is encouraged to act first and ask questions later.
That is precisely why financial misinformation requires a different response from ordinary online gossip. When money is involved, a few minutes spent verifying a claim can prevent a much bigger mistake.
The OPay incident also demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between an official statement and something merely presented as one. A screenshot does not become authentic because it carries a company logo. A voice note does not become credible because the person forwarding it says it came from “someone who works there.” A message does not become true simply because several people have forwarded it.
The source remains important.
The same principle applies to journalists. Financial information requires particularly careful verification because inaccurate reporting can amplify public anxiety. A journalist who publishes an unverified claim about a bank or fintech may unintentionally give the rumour an additional layer of credibility.
Once a claim appears in a news story, people may regard it differently from the original WhatsApp message. That is why responsible journalism requires checking the institution involved and, where necessary, the relevant regulator before publishing a potentially damaging financial allegation.
Ordinary social-media users also have a role to play.
Every person who forwards an unverified financial message becomes part of its distribution chain. Some people may share such messages because they genuinely believe they are helping others. But good intentions do not make unverified information accurate.
The question should therefore not only be, “Could this be true?” It should also be, “How do I know that it is true?”
That distinction is important because misinformation often succeeds in the space between possibility and evidence. A bank could theoretically experience problems. A fintech could theoretically change its operations. A financial institution could theoretically face regulatory action. But the possibility of something happening does not mean that a particular message claiming it has happened is genuine.
The OPay shutdown rumour demonstrates this distinction clearly. The claim was serious enough to attract attention, but the company’s own response contradicted it.
For users, the safest response to an alarming financial message is therefore not immediate forwarding or immediate action. It is verification.
Stop. Check the original source. Look for an official statement. Compare the information with credible news reports. Check the relevant regulator when necessary. Only then decide what action, if any, is required.
The speed of digital communication is unlikely to slow down. A message can still travel from one phone to thousands of others within minutes. Artificial intelligence and increasingly sophisticated digital tools may also make it easier to produce convincing fake documents, statements and audio recordings.
That makes media and financial literacy increasingly important.
People need to understand that the ability to receive information instantly does not mean that the information itself is reliable. In fact, the faster information travels, the greater the need for users to develop the habit of slowing down before acting.
The OPay incident may eventually disappear from social-media timelines as another rumour that was debunked. But its wider lesson remains relevant.
A fake shutdown notice can be created in minutes. It can cross social networks before the institution involved has time to respond. The correction, however, may take much longer to reach everyone who saw the original claim.
That imbalance is what makes financial misinformation dangerous.
The truth may eventually catch up with a false claim, but by then, the rumour may already have influenced decisions, created anxiety and damaged confidence.
In an increasingly digital financial system, Nigerians therefore need to treat every alarming financial message with caution. The number of forwards is not evidence. A screenshot is not proof. A familiar logo is not authentication.
When people’s money is involved, the most responsible response to a shocking message may be the least dramatic one: pause, verify and only then act.
