EFCC Witness Claims Banks Withheld Redesigned Naira Notes During 2022 Scarcity

Commercial banks were accused by Chinedu Eneanya, a witness for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the ongoing trial of Mr. Godwin Emefiele, the former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), of causing the shortage that greeted the federal government’s Naira redesign policy in late 2022 and early 2023.

Under cross-examination from Emefiele’s attorney, Mr. Olalekan Ojo, SAN, the witness—a Commission investigator—made the revelation.

A four-count charge against the former CBN Governor is pending. The charges include revamping the Naira without the Board of the CBN, the Committee of Governors (COG) of the CBN, and without the permission of the late President Muhammadu Buhari.

In the lawsuit, filed under the filing number FTC/HC/CR/264/2024, the anti-graft agency alleged, among other things, that Emefiele violated Section 19 of the CBN Act between October 19, 2022, and March 5, 2023, by authorizing the printing of 375,520,000 colourful N1,000 notes at a total cost of N11,052,068,062 without the CBN Board’s recommendation or the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s strict approval, causing harm to the public.

The charge states that the offense violated Section 123 of the Penal Code, Cap 89 Laws of the Federation, 1990, and was subject to the same penalties.

Nonetheless, the defendant had refuted the charge.

The witness presented video evidence during his Evidence-in-Chief, saying that many Nigerians suffered greatly as a result of the Emefiele-led CBN’s redesign of the Naira notes.

However, during Tuesday’s cross-examination, Eneanya, the head of the Inter Ministerial Probe Panel and the seventh prosecution witness (PW7), disclosed alleged violations committed by some commercial banks in the nation when the policy first went into effect in 2022/2023.

He asserted, however, that he could not remember how many banks had employees hoarding currency.

The question posed to him was, “Can you verify to the Honorable Court that bank officials were stockpiling mints?”

“I know that, but I can’t say exactly what,” he answered.

The witness was also unable to establish whether bank executives who were allegedly involved in the currency hoarding had been arrested by the anti-graft agency.

A.O. Mohammed, the prosecution’s attorney, had dismissed the inquiry, claiming that “His beat was specific; whether his (naira redesign) was a valid approval.”

The witness was not restricted to his evidence in chief, however, and as an investigative officer, he had the authority to make an arrest, Emefiele’s attorney said.

Ojo emphasized that the inquiry was also required because the anti-graft agency claims that Emefiele’s actions caused Nigerians unnecessary hardship because of the redesigned currency shortage.

After verifying the witness’ designation, the court reacted by asking him to respond to the query.

When asked what the EFCC did to the bank personnel that resulted in the alleged violations, Eneanya replied, “I told this court that the EFCC raised a task force; I didn’t say it was my team.”

The witness claimed he was “not privy to that information” when he was questioned about whose authorization they visited the nation’s major banks.

The defendant’s attorney responded by asking for an adjournment and requesting access to all case-related papers.

Justice Maryanne Anenih made a brief decision to postpone the witness’s cross-examination until March 19.

In the course of the day’s proceedings, the witness reported that Ahmed Halilu, the Managing Director (MD) of Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Plc (NSPM), had given the EFCC team access to the email exchange between De La Rue and himself.

He stated, “My team was given access to the email by the MD of NMPS, and it was then opened in front of the team.”

He acknowledged that Halilu had written a number of statements, but he was unable to remember them all.

As a result, Ojo asked for the statements.

The NSPM “could not remember” if it had ever created naira notes, he responded when asked.

The witness was likewise unable to recollect the number of currencies that commercial banks had access to.

In order to refresh his memory, he asked to be permitted to review the records.

He stated: “We have a team that went nationwide in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies, taking stock and making sure that those currencies were made available in public,” in response to a query about whether the EFCC team contacted the commercial banks to verify the precise sums sent to them.

He added that a record of the inventory of the resources made available to commercial banks was maintained by the team.

Ojo also requested that the records be provided to the defense.

When asked if the EFCC also examined bank vaults, the witness stated that he “was not there in all the teams.”

Fifteen minutes prior to the start of the day’s hearings, Emefiele’s attorney announced to the court that they had only received the Investigative Report, which the defense had requested at the previous hearing.

The EFCC attorney countered that “the decision to produce the Investigative Report was not made to deprive the defendant and his counsel of the opportunity to ask for the said document.”

The witness complied with the court’s request to produce the document, he said.