By Oloye Ray
The courtroom of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja once again became the focal point of one of Nigeria’s most closely watched financial crime trials as fresh testimony painted a troubling picture of alleged failures in the country’s apex banking institution.
At the heart of the proceedings is former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, who is standing trial on allegations bordering on conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, forgery, obtaining by false pretences and conferring corrupt advantages involving $6.23 million allegedly meant for foreign election observer logistics ahead of Nigeria’s 2023 general election.
The latest testimony, delivered by the prosecution’s 15th witness, Jim Obazee, a former Special Investigator appointed by President Bola Tinubu to probe the CBN and related government entities, went beyond the alleged disappearance of millions of dollars. It raised broader questions about governance, accountability and internal controls within Nigeria’s most important financial institution.
According to the witness, the controversial withdrawal was executed without the mandatory naira backing required for foreign currency transactions. The consequence, he told the court, was unprecedented: the CBN’s special dollar account used for internal staff and government agencies allegedly slipped into a negative balance of about N2.86 billion.
For financial experts, such a development represents more than an accounting anomaly. Central banks are expected to maintain rigorous controls over every transaction, particularly foreign currency movements involving public funds. A negative balance in an official account suggests either significant procedural failures or deliberate circumvention of established financial safeguards.
Obazee argued that such an occurrence should immediately have attracted scrutiny from the bank’s leadership, especially from the governor, who also functioned as the institution’s chief accounting officer.
His testimony suggested that multiple warning signs existed but were allegedly ignored.
Among them was the absence of a naira cover for the dollar withdrawal, a requirement intended to ensure accountability and transparency whenever foreign exchange is released. He further alleged that the cash left the CBN’s Abuja branch on February 3, 2023, without complete documentation identifying the individual who physically received the money.
Even more striking was his assertion that the transaction should have appeared in the CBN’s financial statements and attracted the attention of both internal auditors and external auditors. According to the witness, such an unusual transaction should have been visible during routine financial reporting and audit exercises.
Another issue raised during testimony concerned the Bank Verification Number (BVN) platform. Obazee told the court that the system was reportedly non-functional for more than a month leading up to the withdrawal, making it impossible to electronically verify the identity of the person who allegedly collected the funds.
In Nigeria’s banking industry, the BVN serves as one of the primary identity verification tools designed to reduce fraud and improve customer authentication. If unavailable during a major cash transaction, experts say, alternative verification procedures would ordinarily require even stricter documentation.
The prosecution also sought to establish that the transaction followed a chain of official correspondence. The witness acknowledged that former President Muhammadu Buhari had approved the release of funds for election observer logistics through official communication addressed to then Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Boss Mustapha.
Subsequently, Mustapha allegedly wrote to Emefiele authorising the release of the funds and identifying Jibril Abubakar as the person designated to collect them. A further communication from the Director of Banking Supervision reportedly instructed the Abuja branch controller to release the money.
Yet, according to the witness, despite this paper trail, investigators found no evidence that the funds ever reached any foreign election observer mission.
“The money was actually taken, but did not flow to the supposed beneficiaries,” he told the court.
That assertion strikes at the centre of the prosecution’s case. While official approvals may have existed for election observer logistics, investigators argue that the intended beneficiaries never received the money, suggesting that the transaction ultimately served no public purpose.
The testimony also highlighted what investigators described as weaknesses in the CBN’s internal administrative processes.
One official involved in processing the payment documents was allegedly redeployed to the governor’s office just 56 days after the transaction without following standard personnel procedures. Although the prosecution has not directly linked the redeployment to the alleged fraud, the witness suggested it formed part of a wider pattern requiring investigation.
Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the testimony was the allegation that Emefiele’s failure to question the negative account balance pointed to prior knowledge of the transaction.
“The money won’t leave without the governor’s approval,” the witness maintained.
That claim, however, remains an allegation that the prosecution must still prove beyond reasonable doubt.
The defence used cross-examination to challenge the credibility and sequence of the investigation.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria Matthew Burkaa established that criminal charges had already been filed against Emefiele in September 2023 before Obazee received his presidential appointment in December of that year to investigate the CBN.
The implication, from the defence’s perspective, is whether investigations merely supported charges that had already been initiated rather than independently establishing criminal liability.
Obazee also admitted under questioning that every individual interviewed during the investigation—including Emefiele—denied involvement or knowledge of the disputed transaction.
Another significant courtroom moment came when Justice Hamza Muazu ruled that the witness, not being a forensic document examiner, could not authenticate Emefiele’s signature on documents already admitted as exhibits.
The ruling underscored a fundamental principle of criminal trials: specialised evidence requires specialised expertise. Questions surrounding document authenticity will therefore require other forms of proof if the prosecution intends to rely on them.
The witness further disclosed that investigators recovered $856,500 from one Bashir Maishanu, who allegedly confessed and returned part of the money. He expressed the opinion that Maishanu and several other officials—including former SGF Boss Mustapha, members of the CBN board and the Abuja branch manager—should also face prosecution.
However, those remarks reflected the witness’s investigative opinion rather than decisions already taken by prosecutors or the court.
Beyond the personalities involved, the trial raises broader questions about financial governance in Nigeria.
The CBN occupies a unique position in the country’s economy. It regulates commercial banks, safeguards monetary stability and manages billions of dollars in public assets. Any allegation suggesting weaknesses in its internal controls inevitably attracts national attention because confidence in the institution depends heavily on public trust.
If the prosecution succeeds in proving its allegations, the case could reinforce calls for stronger internal audit mechanisms, tighter documentation standards and greater oversight of foreign currency transactions involving public institutions.
If, on the other hand, the defence successfully demonstrates reasonable doubt, the proceedings may also highlight the importance of ensuring investigations are thorough, impartial and supported by verifiable evidence before criminal responsibility is assigned.
For now, the court has not determined Emefiele’s guilt or innocence.
With the matter adjourned until October 20, 2026, for the adoption of final addresses, the defence has also indicated its intention to file a no-case submission, arguing that the prosecution has not established sufficient evidence requiring the former CBN governor to enter a defence.
The court’s eventual ruling will not only determine Emefiele’s legal fate but may also shape future expectations about transparency, accountability and financial oversight within Nigeria’s public institutions.
Until then, the alleged $6.2 million withdrawal—and the questions surrounding how it moved through the nation’s central bank—remains one of the country’s most consequential financial crime cases.
