New details from the agreement show that POS agents in Nigeria are required to meet monthly performance targets that are not explicitly defined in the contract, yet can determine whether their business continues to operate.
According to the document, agents are obligated to meet “all targets set as communicated” by the company, with a clear warning that failure to do so can lead to operational consequences.
“You shall meet all targets set as communicated… The POS terminal may be withdrawn… or restricted if You fail to meet the monthly targets…,” the contract read.
The agreement does not specify what those targets are, how they are calculated, or what benchmarks agents are expected to meet before onboarding. Instead, the targets are determined and communicated separately, outside the core contract.
Further provisions show that failure to meet these targets over time can directly trigger termination of the agent relationship.
This introduces a second layer of uncertainty. Not only are the targets undefined in the contract, but the timeframe for enforcement is also flexible and subject to change at the company’s discretion.
Agents who fall below internally defined benchmarks risk account restrictions, reduced support, or outright termination, sometimes without prior warning.
Because the targets can be adjusted “from time to time”, agents may be evaluated against shifting benchmarks they do not fully control.
For small-scale operators, particularly in low-traffic or rural areas, this creates uncertainty around business sustainability.
In practice, performance is typically measured using a mix of transaction volume, frequency, and account activity.
However, without fixed thresholds communicated upfront, agents may struggle to know whether they are meeting expectations until enforcement actions are taken.
The agreement also ties performance expectations to broader discretionary powers. Under separate clauses, the company retains the right to act where it determines, “in its absolute discretion”, that the relationship poses a risk or no longer meets operational standards.
Regulatory frameworks from the Central Bank of Nigeria require financial institutions to maintain oversight of agent networks, but they do not mandate public disclosure of performance benchmarks at the agent level.
This leaves room for providers to manage their networks using internal metrics that are not always visible to participants.
For now, many operators are left to interpret a moving target, one that ultimately determines whether their business remains active or is quietly phased out.
