EFCC Urges Court to Dismiss Emefiele’s No-Case Submission in $6.23m Case

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, to reject former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele’s no-case submission, arguing that the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence for him to enter his defence.

At the hearing on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, prosecution counsel Rotimi Oyedepo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, told Justice Hamza Mu’azu that the evidence before the court established a prima facie case against Emefiele.

Emefiele is facing an amended 20-count charge involving alleged criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of office, conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretence. The charges include allegations surrounding the withdrawal of $6.23 million and the alleged conferment of corrupt advantage in the award of CBN contracts.

Oyedepo argued that a no-case submission should only determine whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to require a defendant to respond, rather than establish guilt or assess the credibility of witnesses at that stage.

He said requiring Emefiele to enter his defence would not mean he was being asked to prove his innocence but would allow him to respond to the allegations raised by the prosecution.

On the contract-related charges, Oyedepo said the prosecution needed to establish Emefiele’s status as a public officer, his alleged use of that position and the conferment of corrupt advantage on relatives or associates.

He told the court that exhibits bearing Emefiele’s approval signatures, alongside corporate records, linked him to companies allegedly associated with his wife and brother-in-law, including Architekon Nigeria Limited.

The prosecution also argued that there was evidence of undue advantage involving a company allegedly associated with Sa’adatu Ramalan Yaro, described as an associate of the former CBN governor.

According to Oyedepo, the contracts, valued at between $6 million and $10 million, did not undergo a review by the Major Contracts Tender Board, which he said was established under the Public Procurement Act, 2007, and chaired by a CBN deputy governor.

He explained that contracts exceeding $1 million were required to be reviewed by the board before recommendations were sent to the CBN governor for approval.

The board was also responsible for checking whether CBN employees served as directors of companies seeking contracts, he said.

Oyedepo maintained that bypassing the board deprived the contracts of the required scrutiny and suggested that the procurement process had been deliberately circumvented.

Citing testimony from a procurement department staff member identified as PW10, the prosecution said at least three companies submitted bids for each contract but officials were allegedly directed to process the bids in favour of a company linked to Emefiele’s associates.

He further alleged that the company had access to the CBN’s internal pricing information and subsequently submitted bids matching the institution’s in-house prices, undermining fair competition among prospective contractors.

“The ingredient of the offence is the unfairness of the process,” Oyedepo told the court.

He argued that the defence’s position that the contracts had been executed, or that money had not been traced directly to Emefiele, did not invalidate the prosecution’s case because the alleged unfairness in the award process was central to the charges.

The prosecution also alleged that the company had operated for years without securing similar contracts until Emefiele became CBN governor, after which it allegedly received all 45 contracts under consideration.

Oyedepo further relied on evidence of transfers from Emefiele’s personal account to the company’s account, arguing that the transactions demonstrated his knowledge of the company and its directors.

He said the former governor had a separate responsibility when approving contracts and should have returned them to the board rather than approve them based on recommendations from officials.

“The recommendation would never be an approval,” he said.

The prosecution also urged the court to distinguish the judicial authority cited by the defence, arguing that the case in question concerned money laundering and proof of a predicate offence, while Emefiele’s charges centred on the alleged conferment of corrupt advantage through an unfair procurement process.

On the alleged $6.23 million withdrawal, Oyedepo told the court that the funds were withdrawn from the CBN between February and around June, before Emefiele’s removal from office.

He said the withdrawal was purportedly facilitated by letters attributed to former President Muhammadu Buhari and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Boss Mustapha.

According to the prosecution, testimony from witnesses, including Mustapha and a forensic analyst, indicated that the letters used to facilitate the release of the money were forged.

Oyedepo also relied on the testimony of PW15, who reportedly said an automatic system notification was triggered when the relevant account went into debit, alerting Emefiele to the transaction. The prosecution alleged that he failed to take action.

It argued that the evidence raised questions of criminal negligence and breach of trust, given Emefiele’s alleged control over the funds.

The prosecution further cited testimony that the money was released to an individual on Emefiele’s instructions, with part of the funds allegedly used to renovate one of his properties. The remaining money was reportedly recovered from the individual.

Rejecting the defence’s argument that the allegations were speculative, Oyedepo said, “There is a difference between speculation and inferences drawn from legally admissible evidence.”

He also argued that when a forged document is used in a fraudulent transaction and the resulting benefit can be traced to a defendant, the circumstances may support an inference that the defendant forged the document or procured its forgery.

On the defence’s contention that Emefiele’s signature had not undergone forensic examination, Oyedepo maintained that the absence of such an examination did not automatically defeat the forgery allegation, adding that the court could compare disputed signatures in accordance with the law.

He also drew attention to a Supreme Court decision involving approximately $2 million and certain properties, urging the court to consider it in assessing the prosecution’s case.

However, defence counsel Mathew Burkaa, also a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, urged the court to discharge Emefiele, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

“My lord, in the entirety of the charge, the prosecution failed to prove that he had conferred undue advantage on his wife and his associates,” Burkaa said.

The court said the date for its ruling on the no-case submission would be communicated to the parties.