Its report, published in October, records stronger participation by African development lenders and commercial banks, alongside an increase in transactions involving African investors without foreign co-investors.

African-only transactions account for most of the increase

African-only deals rose from 50% to 57%, mixed African–foreign deals from 11% to 12%, while foreign-only deals fell from 39% to 31%.

Using these rounded shares, African-only transactions explain seven of the eight percentage points gained in overall African participation.

This distinction changes the commercial interpretation. The figures provide stronger evidence of regional institutions conducting transactions without overseas co-investors than of an expansion in joint financing partnerships.

Companies seeking an African financing partner and international funds seeking a regional co-investor should therefore examine different parts of the deal market rather than assume the headline describes the same opportunity for both.

“African-only” also should not be confused with “domestic.” A financing arrangement can involve institutions based in different African countries, allowing regional capital and banking relationships to support a business beyond its home market.

The relevant distinction is between participants headquartered within and outside Africa, rather than between purely national and cross-border activity.

Nor does the change in transaction shares establish why investors behaved differently.

Greater African involvement could reflect institutions’ financing mandates, the transactions available or changes in the activity of other participants.

The data should not be presented as proof that African investors suddenly became more confident or that foreign investors withdrew from the continent.

Development lenders expand activity, with EBID prominent

African development lenders participated in 30 transactions, against ten in Q2, while African commercial banks appeared in 23, up from 16.

The ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development, EBID, accounted for 16 of the development-lender transactions.

The increase in lender counts matters because it provides evidence beyond a change in percentage share: these categories of African institutions appeared in more transactions.

However, EBID’s prominence means the expansion was not evenly distributed. A quarterly rise driven substantially by one institution has different implications from an increase spread across many independent investors.

EBID’s own announcements illustrate the sector coverage behind its activity. On September 28, its board approved four operations totaling $390 million: $230 million for Ghana’s Black Volta Gold Project, $50 million for petroleum supply in Ghana, $100 million for railway equipment in Nigeria and $10 million for a climate-smart agriculture pilot covering Ghana, Senegal and Togo. These were approvals rather than confirmation of disbursement.

The operations place the investor-participation figure within a wider commercial setting than startup fundraising alone.

They cover the financing of an industrial asset, commodity supply, transport equipment and agricultural activity.

The businesses involved have different financing requirements, and a development lender can support both corporate operations and infrastructure through its regional mandate.

For companies assessing these institutions as potential partners, the distinction between debt and equity remains consequential.

A lender evaluates repayment capacity and the proposed use of funds; an equity investor also takes ownership risk and considers how it can eventually realize its investment.

Higher lending activity therefore cannot be assumed to represent an equivalent increase in capital available to businesses seeking shareholders.

EBID’s announcements illustrate its activity during the quarter without independently establishing every operation included in Stears’ transaction sample. Assessing whether the broader trend persists will require tracking other institutions’ participation as well as EBID’s own financing pipeline.

Commercial banks connect regional businesses with international financing

Commercial banks can contribute to investment transactions by arranging financing as well as committing their own capital.

In July, Rand Merchant Bank was reported to have coordinated and arranged a $340 million refinancing for Indorama Fertiliser and Chemicals in Nigeria, with development finance institutions and international commercial banks underwriting the facility.

The transaction was intended to improve Indorama’s funding structure and support its Nigerian fertilizer operations.

The example shows how an African bank can occupy a central position in a transaction while working with an international financing base.

Coordinating a group of lenders requires the arranger to bring together institutions with different credit requirements and complete a common financing process. For the borrower, that capacity can be valuable alongside the amount any individual bank contributes.

The refinancing element is also important. Replacing existing debt can improve a company’s financing arrangements, but the full value of a refinancing facility should not automatically be described as fresh investment in additional production capacity.

Investors assessing the economic significance of a deal need to distinguish between restructuring existing obligations, funding expansion and financing an acquisition.

RMB’s role consequently adds a more specific meaning to African participation: a regional institution can help execute and structure a major financing without supplying the entire amount.

Treating the full facility as African-origin capital would obscure the involvement of overseas lenders. Conversely, describing it only as international funding would overlook the African bank’s role in organizing the transaction.

Stronger participation extends to larger transactions

African participation reached 73% of deals worth at least $25 million, compared with 53% in Q2.

The participation figures measure involvement in transactions, rather than the proportion of investment dollars supplied.

Large transactions often require several institutions to share financing commitments and responsibilities.

Egypt’s real estate market provides a relevant example: Orascom Development Egypt announced that a banking consortium comprising Commercial International Bank, Banque Misr and the National Bank of Egypt signed a 10-year, EGP 18 billion financing agreement on July 15 for its O West development. The company said the facility would support the project’s next development phase.

The agreement illustrates how African banks can participate collectively in substantial, long-term corporate financing.

For a developer, the duration of a facility matters alongside its size because construction expenditure and receipts from a project occur over time.

These transactions also explain why the headline should not be read as evidence of uniformly easier financing across African markets.

A consortium financing a major property development and a bank arranging industrial refinancing serve particular borrowers and requirements.

Their participation does not establish what terms are available to a smaller company seeking working capital or an early-stage business seeking equity.

The broader significance is that African institutions are taking a larger role in the transactions being completed, even as access to financing remains uneven. For businesses and investors, this makes it increasingly important to understand which institutions are active in their markets, the financing they provide and the types of companies they serve.

African institutions’ participation in 69% of tracked deals shows the substantial role regional lenders now play in financing activity across the continent.

Their involvement extends from corporate refinancing to industrial projects and infrastructure, placing them among the institutions businesses and international investors need to understand when pursuing African opportunities.

Whether this becomes a lasting shift will depend on participation extending across more institutions, sectors and markets over successive quarters.

The concentration of activity among several lenders leaves that question open. For now, the findings make a clear case for examining African institutions more closely—not simply as sources of funding, but as partners capable of structuring transactions, assembling financing and supporting investment within and across African markets.