ABUJA — The trial of the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, took a dramatic turn this week as the federal government’s special investigator revealed that a contentious $6.2 million withdrawal allegedly executed under the former governor’s watch plunged the apex bank’s special dollar account into a staggering negative balance of N2.86 billion.
Jim Osayande Obazee, the 15th prosecution witness (PW15) and head of the special investigation panel, testified before Justice Hamza Muazu at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Abuja. His testimony painted a grim picture of systemic failures and deliberate circumvention of internal controls that allegedly facilitated the illicit removal of funds purportedly earmarked for international election observers during the 2023 general elections.
A Breach of Protocol
According to Obazee, the $6.2 million left the CBN’s Abuja branch on February 3, 2023, without the required “naira cover”—a mandatory financial safeguard for dollar transactions. This omission, he argued, created a massive hole in the bank’s internal staff and MDAs dollar account, leaving it with a deficit of N2,858,150,196.42.
”Nobody will allow you to leave the bank until the account is balanced,” Obazee told the court. He emphasized that as the chief accounting officer, Emefiele should have immediately flagged the discrepancy. Instead, the special investigator alleged that the transaction was shrouded in secrecy, with no proper documentation of the receiving staff and a suspicious failure to capture the movement of funds in the bank’s 2022 financial statement, which was signed off in May 2025.
Systemic Sabotage
The court heard that the internal integrity of the bank was severely compromised during the lead-up to the withdrawal. Obazee disclosed that the Bank Verification Number (BVN) portal, a critical security tool, had been non-functional for over a month prior to the disbursement. This effectively dismantled the identification process, allowing the funds to be collected by individuals without verifiable records.
The witness further alleged that:
- The Beneficiaries: Despite the stated purpose of funding election observer logistics, there is no evidence that the funds reached any observer mission.
- The “Cover-Up”: A bank official who processed the payment was redeployed to the Governor’s office exactly 56 days later, an action described by the investigator as a departure from normal procedure.
- Partial Recovery: A sum of $856,500 has been recovered from one Bashir Maishanu, who reportedly confessed to the crime. Obazee suggested that Maishanu, along with former officials including former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Boss Mustapha, should also be facing charges.
Defence Challenges
During intense cross-examination, defence counsel Matthew Burkaa, SAN, highlighted potential procedural discrepancies in the prosecution’s timeline. He pointed out that criminal charges were filed against Emefiele as early as September 2023—months before the special investigator was formally directed by President Bola Tinubu to compile specific offences in December 2023.
While Justice Muazu intervened to clarify that the witness could not be compelled to authenticate signatures as he is not a forensic document examiner, the court was left with a stark assertion from the special investigator: “The money won’t leave without the governor’s approval.”
Do you want to advertise with us?
Do you need publicity for a product, service, or event?
Contact us on WhatsApp +2348033617468, +234 816 612 1513, +234 703 010 7174
or Email: validviewnetwork@gmail.com
CLICK TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
The matter has been adjourned until October 20, 2026, for the adoption of final addresses. Emefiele’s legal team has indicated its intent to file a no-case submission, signaling a push for an acquittal on the grounds that the evidence provided by the state is insufficient to sustain the 20-count charge.
Given the significant testimony regarding these financial irregularities, do you believe the scope of the current trial is sufficient, or should the investigator’s recommendation to broaden the prosecution to include other high-ranking officials be pursued?
