The trial of Godwin Emefiele, the former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, produced fresh testimony in Abuja on Tuesday. A senior Finance Ministry official told the court that the ministry had no idea N124.86 billion had left the nation’s main government account while Emefiele was in charge of the apex bank.
The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama heard that the Federal Ministry of Finance had no knowledge of the withdrawal. The evidence came from Ali Mohammed, a director in the ministry, who testified as a prosecution witness.
What the witness told the court
Mohammed described himself as Director of Home Finance at the ministry. He said withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Account (CRA) need the approval of both the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) and the Ministry of Finance. In his account, that process was not followed for the sum now before the court.
“The deduction of N124.8 billion is not known to the Federal Ministry of Finance,” he said, according to Premium Times.
He explained that the matter reached his desk through a letter from the Special Investigator appointed by President Bola Tinubu to probe the CBN under Emefiele. After getting the letter, he called an emergency meeting of the heads of the three divisions he supervises. They told him they knew nothing about the withdrawal. He then wrote to the Accountant-General through the ministry’s Permanent Secretary to ask for clarification.
The Accountant-General’s office replied that it held no record of the transaction, so the money must have been disbursed by the central bank on its own.
Mohammed told the court that Exhibit AJ showed the ministry was unaware of the N124.86 billion. He added that the document did not show the ministry had directed the OAGF to make the withdrawal, particularly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Documents admitted without objection
The prosecution tendered the letters from the Ministry of Finance and the OAGF. Emefiele’s lawyer, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, did not object. Justice Maryanne Anenih then admitted the documents as Exhibits AJ, AK and AL.
(Some outlets spell the judge’s name “Anineh”; the court and most reports use Anenih.)
The prosecution also reminded the witness of an email he had mentioned under cross-examination on May 4, 2026. It carried a directive from the then CBN governor to recover a N1.4 billion debit in the receivables account from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That email and a related document were marked as exhibits.
The earlier testimony: no National Assembly, no presidential approval
Tuesday’s evidence builds on testimony from May. A top CBN official told the same court on 14 May that the National Assembly and the President had not approved the N124.86 billion debit.
That witness said Emefiele turned to the consolidated revenue account, the primary treasury where public income is gathered and from which almost all government spending is paid. He said the former governor directed the debit without parliamentary approval, and that his own role was carrying out Emefiele’s instructions.
Taken together, the two accounts leave a single question at the centre of this charge. Could N124.86 billion be taken from the government’s consolidated account without the relevant government authorities knowing or approving?
The charge against Emefiele
The case is not about misplaced funds. The charge is that Emefiele broke the law of the land. Count 4 alleges that on or about 7 October 2020, in Abuja, he knowingly disobeyed Section 80 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). It says he did so by approving the withdrawal of N124,860,227,865.16 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in a manner not prescribed by the National Assembly, causing injury to the public.
Section 80 of the Constitution says money in the Consolidated Revenue Fund can only be withdrawn in the way the National Assembly has authorised. That is why the witnesses’ repeated point, that no lawmakers’ approval existed, carries so much weight.
The EFCC arraigned Emefiele before Justice Anenih on four counts. He pleaded not guilty to all of them. Reports at the time said the charges covered disobeying the direction of law during the naira swap policy of the Buhari administration, alongside the allegation about the N124.8 billion withdrawal.
One trial among several
This is far from the only legal fight Emefiele faces. He is also standing trial before Justice Hamza Muazu of the FCT High Court on an amended 20-count charge. It alleges criminal breach of trust, forgery, conspiracy to obtain by false pretence and obtaining money by false pretence during his time as CBN governor.
In that case, witnesses have given evidence about $6.23 million withdrawn from the CBN’s Garki branch in February 2023. In July, a prosecution witness conceded under cross-examination that Emefiele did not benefit from that money. The witness also said Emefiele told investigators he never approved the release and that the signature on the approval documents was not his. That cross-examination shows how defence lawyers have been testing prosecution witnesses in his cases.
His fall from office was swift. Reports say he spent time in the custody of the secret police after President Bola Tinubu removed him from the CBN, with court orders later pushing the authorities to charge him or release him.
The court adjourned the case to Wednesday, 7 October 2026, for cross-examination of the witness and the continuation of trial. At the time of writing, I could not find a report of what the defence put to Mohammed today, so that is the next development to watch.
The defence will likely test two things. One is whether the Finance Ministry’s lack of records proves the withdrawal was unauthorised. The other is whether the CBN’s own internal approvals, and the practice of the apex bank at the time, tell a different story. Emefiele’s lawyers did not object to the documents on Tuesday, which means the fight will move to what those documents prove.
For Nigerians following the case, the outcome matters beyond one man. It will help settle how far the central bank can go in drawing on public accounts, and who must sign off before it does.
