The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has urged an Abuja court to reject former Central Bank Governor Godwin Emefiele’s attempt to terminate his trial, arguing that evidence of alleged fraudulent withdrawals, forged documents and irregular contract awards requires him to enter his defence.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has asked the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja to dismiss a no case submission filed by former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor Godwin Emefiele, insisting that sufficient evidence exists to require him to defend allegations involving $6.23 million and controversial procurement contracts. The commission presented its arguments on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, before Justice Hamza Muazu at the court in Maitama, Abuja. Emefiele faces an amended 20 count charge involving alleged criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of office, conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretence. The case concerns the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of $6.23 million from the Central Bank and claims that companies connected to his relatives received unfair advantages in government contracts. Prosecution counsel Rotimi Oyedepo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, argued that the evidence established a preliminary case requiring an answer. Emefiele denies the allegations and maintains that prosecutors have failed to connect him to criminal wrongdoing. After hearing both sides, the court reserved its ruling, with a date to be communicated to the parties.
Former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor Godwin Emefiele during a court appearance. He is challenging the prosecution’s evidence in an ongoing fraud trial.
The latest proceedings focused on whether the EFCC had presented enough evidence to justify continuing the trial rather than whether Emefiele had already been proved guilty. A no case submission allows a defendant to ask a court to end criminal proceedings after the prosecution closes its case, arguing that the evidence does not establish a legally sufficient basis for requiring a defence. Oyedepo told the court that the relevant question was whether a prima facie case existed, not whether every allegation had been established beyond reasonable doubt. He maintained that evidence from witnesses and documents had raised issues that Emefiele should be required to address. According to the prosecutor, calling the former governor to enter his defence would not reverse the burden of proof or require him to establish his innocence. The prosecution remains responsible for proving the charges to the standard required by criminal law. The court must now determine whether the evidence presented is sufficient for the case to proceed to the defence stage.
A significant part of the prosecution’s argument concerned contracts allegedly awarded by the Central Bank to companies connected with Emefiele’s relatives and associates. Oyedepo alleged that Architekon Nigeria Limited, a company associated with the former governor’s wife and brother in law, benefited from procurement decisions that failed to comply with established review procedures. He also questioned contracts awarded to April 1616 Nigeria Limited, alleging that its bidding process was improperly influenced. According to the prosecution, some contracts that should have been scrutinised by the bank’s Major Contracts Tender Board bypassed that process before receiving approval. Oyedepo argued that the required scrutiny would ordinarily help determine whether bidders had conflicts of interest and whether the proposed awards complied with procurement rules. He maintained that the alleged departure from those procedures was central to the accusation of conferring corrupt advantage. These allegations remain disputed, and the court has not yet determined that Emefiele personally manipulated any contract award.
The Central Bank of Nigeria headquarters in Abuja. The EFCC’s allegations concern procurement contracts and financial transactions carried out during Emefiele’s tenure as governor.
The EFCC further argued that testimony from procurement officials and corporate records supported its concerns about the contract awards. Oyedepo referred to witness evidence suggesting that bidding companies were allegedly directed towards particular outcomes, including claims that one company received information about the Central Bank’s internal pricing before submitting its quotation. The prosecution contended that access to such information could undermine the fairness of a competitive procurement process. It also relied on documents bearing Emefiele’s approval signatures and records allegedly linking him to the companies involved. Oyedepo argued that the question was not simply whether the companies performed the contracts they received, but whether the process through which they obtained those contracts provided an improper advantage. The defence rejects that interpretation and maintains that prosecutors have not demonstrated that Emefiele interfered with the tender process. The dispute therefore centres on the legal significance of the approval records, witness testimony and alleged irregularities in the procurement system.
Emefiele’s lead counsel, Matthew Burkaa, also a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, urged the court to terminate the proceedings, arguing that none of the prosecution witnesses had established the essential elements of the alleged offences. Burkaa maintained that the evidence showed only that Emefiele approved contracts in his official capacity, not that he personally directed the tender board to favour any bidder. He argued that the companies named in the charges had executed the contracts awarded to them and that the prosecution had failed to establish personal financial benefit or improper interference by the former governor. On the allegation involving unfair competitive advantage, the defence questioned whether investigators had identified who allegedly provided confidential pricing information, how it was communicated or which documents proved the accusation. Burkaa also challenged the strength of the prosecution’s evidence concerning the $6.23 million withdrawal. His position is that suspicion, official responsibility and the existence of disputed transactions are insufficient substitutes for evidence linking Emefiele personally to the offences charged.
The separate allegation involving $6.23 million concerns funds reportedly withdrawn from the Central Bank in connection with purported expenses for international election observers during the 2023 general election. Prosecutors allege that documents attributed to former President Muhammadu Buhari and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation Boss Mustapha were used to facilitate the release of the money. During the proceedings, Oyedepo relied on witness testimony indicating that the documents were forged and that the transaction allegedly generated a system notification connected to Emefiele’s office. The EFCC argued that the former governor’s authority over the institution and the circumstances of the withdrawal raised questions requiring an explanation. Prosecutors also referred to evidence concerning the eventual handling of the withdrawn funds, including allegations that part of the money was connected to renovation work on a property associated with the defendant. Emefiele’s lawyers dispute the suggested connection, maintaining that he was unaware of the fraudulent transaction and that his own signature had been forged. The evidence has not yet resulted in a judicial finding that he authorised or benefited from the withdrawal.
The historical background to the trial dates to Emefiele’s removal as Central Bank governor in June 2023, shortly after President Bola Tinubu took office. Emefiele had led the bank since June 2014, overseeing Nigeria’s monetary policy during periods of economic pressure, currency instability and significant changes to the country’s financial system. His suspension in 2023 was followed by investigations and criminal proceedings relating to decisions and transactions during his time at the apex bank. The current Abuja prosecution includes allegations concerning contracts and the disputed withdrawal reportedly associated with preparations for the 2023 elections. The wider investigation into his tenure has generated separate legal proceedings, some involving different transactions and different courts. These cases must be distinguished because allegations in one proceeding do not establish guilt in another. The October 20 hearing concerns the sufficiency of evidence in the Abuja case and does not resolve the totality of the legal disputes involving the former governor.
Godwin Emefiele served as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria from 2014 until his suspension in June 2023. His tenure has since become the subject of several legal proceedings.
The trial has implications for public confidence in the management of Nigeria’s financial institutions and the enforcement of procurement rules. The Central Bank occupies a central position in the economy through its responsibilities for monetary policy, financial stability, currency management and the supervision of financial institutions. Allegations involving irregular expenditure or the improper award of contracts at such an institution raise concerns about oversight and internal accountability. The EFCC’s position is that public officials must answer questions arising from evidence of alleged conflicts of interest and unauthorised transactions. The defence, however, emphasises that criminal liability must be established through admissible evidence rather than assumptions based on a defendant’s senior position. These competing arguments reflect two important principles of the justice system: the need to investigate suspected misuse of public resources and the right of every accused person to receive a fair trial. Any eventual determination must rest on the evidence and the applicable law, rather than public expectations about the prosecution.
The latest Abuja hearing also coincided with a separate development in Emefiele’s legal disputes. On October 20, the Court of Appeal in Lagos reserved judgment in his challenge to a decision by Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court refusing to withdraw from another criminal trial. Emefiele’s lawyers argued that a ruling concerning questioning about an alleged $400,000 payment created an appearance of judicial bias. The EFCC opposed that argument and
