A dispute arising from an informal community savings arrangement, commonly known as Ajo or Esusu, has triggered widespread discussion online, prompting public clarifications from the Ajo administrator involved, fintech company LemFi, and the Nigerians in the United Kingdom (NIUK) community.

The matter centres on Mr Benjamin Kuti, popularly known online as Oluomo of Derby, who recently addressed allegations linked to an Ajo group he administered, while organisations previously associated with him moved to clarify their positions.

Ajo Explained and the Admin’s Response

In a detailed post shared online, Mr Kuti explained that an Ajo is a rotating savings system built on trust, where members contribute agreed sums at fixed intervals and receive the total contribution in turns. He stressed that the system involves no interest, profit, or guarantees, and that participation relies solely on mutual commitment.

According to him, his role as an administrator was limited to coordinating payments, keeping records, ensuring transparency, and communicating with members. He stated clearly that Ajo administrators are not guarantors and are not legally or financially responsible for the default of another adult participant unless explicitly agreed.

Addressing circulating narratives, Mr Kuti said he did not collect money for personal use, did not benefit financially, and did not disappear after the issue arose. He explained that the individual at the centre of the dispute, identified as Olakunle Faniran, joined the Ajo after responding to a public post about the savings scheme last year.

Mr Kuti admitted that his key error was failing to request formal identification, relying instead on trust, a practice he said had worked successfully in over three Ajo groups he had managed since 2022. He noted that in Ajo arrangements, contributions are paid directly into the recipient’s account when it is their turn, not into the admin’s personal account.

He further disclosed that repeated attempts to reach Mr Faniran over a three-week period were unsuccessful, and that the individual has since deactivated his social media account. Efforts to recall the bank transfer were also unsuccessful.

Despite stating that he was not contractually liable, Mr Kuti said he had chosen to personally resolve the matter, acknowledging that stronger due diligence should have been carried out before admitting new members. He described the episode as a lesson in leadership and accountability, adding that responsibility sometimes involves doing what is right, even when it is uncomfortable.

LemFi Distances Itself From Individual Involvement

As public discussions intensified, LemFi, a regulated financial services company, issued a formal clarification to address speculation about its relationship with Mr Kuti.

The company stated unequivocally that it has no partnership, contractual agreement, brand ambassadorship, or endorsement arrangement with Mr Kuti in his personal capacity. LemFi explained that its engagement is with the Nigerians in the United Kingdom (NIUK) community as an organisation, not with any individual.

According to the company, the partnership was established solely to support Nigerians living in the UK through recognised community structures and leadership. #LemFi emphasised that this relationship is entirely independent of Mr Kuti’s personal activities or legal standing.

The fintech firm also reiterated its zero-tolerance stance on ethical or financial misconduct, noting that customer trust and security remain its highest priorities.

NIUK Issues Public Disclaimer

The Nigerians in the United Kingdom Community Limited (NIUK) also released a public disclaimer distancing the organisation from Mr Kuti.

In its statement, NIUK confirmed that Mr Kuti has resigned from all corporate and administrative roles within the organisation, with his resignation formally filed and accepted at Companies House. The group stressed that he no longer holds any position, authority, or mandate within NIUK.

While acknowledging his involvement during the early formation stage of the community, NIUK stated that the organisation has since evolved into a structured, transparent, and community-led body governed by its interim leadership.

The organisation warned that any claims suggesting that Mr Kuti represents, owns, or leads NIUK are false and misleading. It further advised members of the public that any dealings with him are undertaken at their own discretion and risk, and that #NIUK bears no responsibility for actions taken by him.

Broader Implications for Community Trust

The unfolding situation has reignited conversations around trust-based financial arrangements within diaspora communities, the risks associated with informal savings schemes, and the importance of identity verification and governance.

While Ajo systems have long served as financial lifelines for many, the episode highlights the vulnerabilities that can arise when informal structures intersect with digital communities and large networks of strangers.

As of the time of reporting, efforts to locate the defaulting participant remain ongoing, while the Ajo administrator involved maintains that he is working towards a resolution.