Regulatory context
Nigerian AML/CFT obligations, written without guesswork
Six pages covering the authorities a Nigerian compliance function answers to, what each obligation requires in substance, and where the platform produces the evidence behind it. Written under a rule we state openly below: no figures, no citations, and an explicit list on every page of what you must confirm for yourself.
The topics
Where your obligations come from
Different authorities, different duties, and — for most institutions — more than one of them at once.
NFIU and goAML
What NFIU reporting requires of a Nigerian reporting entity, the evidence a supervisor expects behind a filing, and how the Baobyte AML Suite governs report generation and submission.
Learn moreCBN AML/CFT Regulations
The programme elements a CBN-supervised institution is expected to operate, the evidence each produces, and how the Baobyte AML Suite supports them — with jurisdiction-specific parameters left to the operative regulation.
Learn moreSCUML and DNFBPs
How the Baobyte AML Suite handles DNFBP classification, SCUML registration identifiers and Nigerian address coding — including exactly what it refuses to assert without supervisory material.
Learn moreFATF Recommendations
How the Baobyte AML Suite's capabilities map to the themes of the FATF Recommendations, presented by theme rather than by citation, with the numbering left to the current FATF publication.
Learn moreNDPA data protection
How Nigerian data protection obligations interact with AML/CFT processing — lawful basis, minimisation, retention, subject rights and legal holds — and what the Baobyte AML Suite provides for each.
Learn moreRegulatory calendar
The reporting and governance cycles a Nigerian AML/CFT programme runs, by name and trigger, with every deadline left to be confirmed against the operative instrument.
Learn more
How these pages are written
What we will and will not tell you
A compliance officer can act on what they read here, so the editorial rule matters as much as the content. It is stated rather than assumed.
No thresholds, no deadlines, no citations
Nothing on these pages states a reporting threshold, a filing deadline, a penalty, a section number or the current version of an instrument. Those change, and a stale figure on a vendor's site is a firm's missed obligation.
The parameter is named instead
Where a duty turns on a figure, the page names the parameter you need and tells you to read it from the operative instrument. You get a checklist of what to look up rather than an answer you cannot audit.
Every page says what we do not claim
No regulator has endorsed, certified or approved this software, and installing it does not make an institution compliant. Each page carries that list explicitly rather than leaving it to be inferred.
Product claims trace to a control register
Where we describe what the platform does, the claim carries the identifier of the internal control-register row behind it — including the two rows our own register records as still pending.
The honest position on filing
Reporting stays refused until you supply the authoritative artefacts
It would be straightforward to ship a plausible goAML schema and let the product appear ready to file. We do not, and the reason is worth stating on a page you can hold us to.
A report generated against a guessed schema validates cleanly, submits cleanly and is wrong in a way nobody discovers until the authority rejects it — or worse, does not. So report generation and submission are gated on artefacts that can only come from the receiving authority: the schema and its digest, the code lists in force, the filing channel, and the correction procedure for a rejected submission.
Until an institution supplies and formally accepts those, the platform refuses to file. Our own control register records the reporting control as pending a regulator artifact, and the retention and legal-hold control as pending a legal decision. Both appear on the relevant pages rather than being rounded up.
Talk to a specialist
Bring your obligations list. We will be specific about the gaps.
A working session with someone who has implemented these controls, rather than a product demonstration with a compliance slide in it.