Nigerian payments startup Paystack is embroiled in a regulatory crisis after the launch of its consumer product, Zap, sparked a trademark war with another startup, Zap Africa and triggered scrutiny that showed that Paystack’s Zap failed to inform the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), let alone obtain approval to launch.

Paystack went behind CBN’s back to launch Zap, a report by Big Tech This Week found.

Against a litany of Nigeria’s financial laws, Zap by Paystack was launched on March 24, as co-founder and CEO Shola Akinlade told attendees of the event that Zap was a product focused on “fast, reliable and secure transfers.” He tested the product before a live audience.

Hours after the launch, Zap Africa implicitly flayed Paystack’s product on X, emphasising that the crypto startup was the only recognised “Zap” in the nation and continent.

“There is only one ZAP in Nigeria and Africa,” the crypto startup wrote on X in an attempt to diminish the new Paystack product.

The name clash drew the scrutiny of Nigerians as many queried why CBN would approve the same name for two separate entities, and the issue of trademark was raised.

Big Tech This Week, a tech news platform, looked into the matter to determine the entity that first registered the name, a move that uncovered a far worse offence.

It was discovered that Paystack’s Zap not only flouted stipulated CBN regulations, but the payment platform also violated the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

Paystack’s Zap said the platform was only available in Nigeria, both locals and tourists on short visits to the West African nation, a statement that proved to be false.

An X user living abroad tweeted that he transferred funds from his European Revolut account to Nigeria via Zap— an international transaction that ran afoul of Paystack Zap’s claim that its services were limited to and for Nigerians.

“I just sent money from my Revolut (dollar) account to my Access naira account (in less than 30 secs) with Paystack’s Zap,” @ovie_tag tweeted on March 24.

Whereas the only companies approved to process international payments are those licensed as International Money Transfer Operators (IMTO), a category Paystack’s Zap has yet to attain.

Big Tech performed a similar foreign transaction, using Paystack’s Zap to transfer funds from a UK Monzo account to a GTB account in Nigeria. The transfer was smooth and seamless, violating the regulations of the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which did not approve ZAP as an international payment processor.

When FCA was asked whether Paystack’s Zap received any go-ahead to launch cross-border transactions, the UK agency replied in the negative.

FCA said Paystack’s Zap has no legal basis and licence to remit funds internationally into and outside the UK.

“If a company is not listed on the FCA register, and it offers financial services in the UK, it does so without our permission,” the tech newspaper cited an official as saying. “The onus is on the user, but we cannot protect them if anything goes wrong.”

The UK’s money regulator further disclosed that although Stripe was recognised as a payment processor, Zap was neither listed as its affiliate. In their own words, Zap was making cross-border payments without permission.

Sources from Nigeria’s top bank told Big Tech that CBN was not informed about Paystack’s latest consumer product and that no approval was issued to launch Zap.

“When sending money/transactions with an international card, you need to get approval from the originating and destination countries you’re sending it to,” Big Tech cited a source.

“Money crossing the border is remittances. Paystack does not have the authorisation to do remittances. They need the CBN’s IMTO licence.”

Even as the trademark war raged, documents showed that Zap Africa first applied for the Class 35 trademark on October 8, 2023, while Paystack filed for Classes 35 and 36 trademarks on December 4, 2023.

Paystack followed up with an application for a Class 42 trademark on June 25, 2024.

Zap Africa applied for a Class 36 trademark on March 27, 2025, three days after Paystack launched Zap.

The discovery that Paystack’s Zap lacked any CBN approval and licence to function as a payment processor, let alone perform cross-border transactions, far outweighs the concerns of a trade mark clash.

CBN does not take lightly entities that flout financial laws and impose stiff sanctions, which come with fines and prison sentences on violators.
Paystack’s Zap first has to answer to the top bank to determine if it has any right to exist before it can fight to retain its name.

The trademark war was small potatoes compared to the regulatory crisis facing Paystack’s Zap.