EFCC Urges Court to Dismiss Emefiele’s No-Case Submission

By Adebola Muili

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has urged the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama, Abuja, to dismiss a no-case submission filed by former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, insisting that the evidence presented in his trial established a prima facie case requiring him to enter his defence.

The prosecution argued that the evidence linked Emefiele to the alleged withdrawal of $6.23 million from the CBN through letters purportedly forged in the names of former President Muhammadu Buhari and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Boss Mustapha, as well as alleged irregularities in the award of contracts to companies associated with his relations and associates.

This was contained in the prosecution’s arguments before Justice Hamza Mu’azu on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, as Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, urged the court to reject the application.

Emefiele is facing an amended 20-count charge bordering on alleged criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of office, conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretence, including allegations of corrupt advantage in the award of CBN contracts.

Oyedepo told the court that a no-case submission was intended to determine whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case, not to determine the defendant’s guilt or assess the credibility of witnesses at that stage.

On the alleged $6.23 million withdrawal, the prosecution submitted that the funds were withdrawn from the CBN between February and around June, before Emefiele’s removal from office, purportedly on the strength of letters attributed to Buhari and Mustapha.

Oyedepo argued that evidence from witnesses, including Mustapha and a forensic analyst, showed that the letters used to facilitate the release of the funds were forged.

He also relied on the testimony of PW15, who reportedly told the court that the withdrawal triggered an automatic system notification to Emefiele because the relevant account went into debit, but that the former CBN governor allegedly took no action.

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

It further alleged that the money was released to an individual on Emefiele’s instructions, with part of it reportedly used to renovate one of his properties, while the balance was recovered from the individual.

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

He argued that contracts valued between $6 million and $10 million allegedly bypassed the Major Contracts Tender Board, which was responsible for reviewing contracts exceeding $1 million before recommendations were forwarded to the CBN Governor for approval.

According to the prosecution, the alleged circumvention of the Board prevented the necessary scrutiny of the procurement process, including checks on whether CBN staff members were directors of companies bidding for contracts.

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

He further alleged that the company was informed of the CBN’s internal prices and subsequently quoted the exact amounts, thereby denying other prospective bidders a fair opportunity.

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

The prosecution maintained that the alleged offences were not negated by claims that the contracts had been executed or that the funds involved had not been traced directly to Emefiele, arguing that the alleged unfairness in the award process was central to the charges.

Oyedepo also told the court that the company had existed for years without securing contracts of the nature under investigation until Emefiele became CBN Governor, after which it allegedly received all 45 contracts under consideration.

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

The prosecution also maintained that approving the contracts was distinct from recommending them, arguing that Emefiele ought to have referred the contracts back to the Board rather than approve them.

“The recommendation would never be an approval,” Oyedepo told the court.

Addressing the defence’s argument that the prosecution’s case was speculative, Oyedepo submitted that the evidence before the court provided a basis for drawing legally permissible inferences.

“There is a difference between speculation and inferences drawn from legally admissible evidence,” he said.

He further argued that the absence of a forensic examination of Emefiele’s signature did not automatically defeat the forgery allegation, maintaining that the court could compare the disputed signatures in accordance with the law.

However, defence counsel, Mathew Burkaa, SAN, 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 ruling on the no-case submission would be communicated to the parties.