A key novelty of the unitary system of personal property security law is the concept of security interests or rights developed to address the rather complex categorizations of security rights under the common law. With respect to the limitations of floating charges as security devices for loans under the common law, there were expectations that the unitary security interest could provide an alternative security device capable of addressing the problems faced by hitherto inhibited business borrowers. This article compares the floating charge device to the unitary security interest in some critical areas to ascertain whether the latter ameliorates the difficulties associated with floating charges or whether it merely creates an added conceptual burden within the framework of an already convoluted secured transactions system.

In a bid to improve financial inclusion and access to affordable debt finance by micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), Nigeria's Secured Transactions in Movable Assets Act (STMA) was enacted on 31 May 2017 to regulate the creation, perfection and realization of security interests in movable assets. This article critically examines certain provisions of the STMA, including the potential issues that may arise due to the dual registration system now available under the act and that hitherto existing under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, as well as the implications of the STMA on traditional pledge transactions. It concludes that, while the STMA is an impressive attempt at enabling MSMEs to leverage their assets into capital for investment and expansion, it fails to procure a harmonized legal framework for secured transactions in personal property or to facilitate their effective use as collateral to improve access to credit by businesses in Nigeria.

The clamour for the reform of Nigeria's secured transactions’ law has culminated in the recent enactment of the Secured Transactions in Movable Assets Act to stimulate responsible lending to micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), among other objectives. This article evaluates the impact of the act, in particular how it addresses the problems associated with the common law system that made it difficult for small business entities to access loans and other credit facilities. The article further examines the implications of the autonomy the act gives to companies to continue to grant charges pursuant to the old system. The author contends that, despite the act's obvious similarity to reformed systems of personal property security laws (reform now being championed by the UN Commission on International Trade Law), expectations of it meeting its key objective of stimulating credit to MSMEs may be misconceived.

In response to the inability of micro, small and medium scale enterprises (MSMEs) to access credit to finance their business operations, the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria passed the Central Bank of Nigeria (Registration of Security Interests in Movable Property by Banks and Other Financial Institutions in Nigeria) Regulations, No 1, 2015. The purport of this regulation is, among other things, to ensure that MSMEs can use items of personal property to create security. This article critically examines the regulation in the light of the building blocks of article 9 of the US Uniform Commercial Code, which is not only a paradigmatic piece of legislation but appears to be the model on which the Nigerian regulation is based. This critical examination leads the authors to conclude that, although the regulation represents the first steps to reform, much more remains to be done to ensure effectiveness.