ABUJA — The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has urged the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, to dismiss a no-case submission filed by former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele in his ongoing trial over alleged financial offences, including a disputed $6.23 million withdrawal.
The commission argued on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, that evidence presented by the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Emefiele, requiring him to enter his defence.
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. The charges also include allegations relating to the withdrawal of $6.23 million and the alleged conferment of corrupt advantages in the award of CBN contracts.
Prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, made the submissions before Justice Hamza Mu’azu.
Oyedepo maintained that a no-case submission was intended to determine whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to require a defendant to respond, rather than to establish guilt or assess the credibility of witnesses conclusively at that stage.
He argued that directing Emefiele to enter his defence would not amount to compelling him to prove his innocence but would provide an opportunity to answer the allegations arising from the evidence before the court.
Addressing the contract-related allegations, Oyedepo identified the prosecution’s case as resting on Emefiele’s position as a public officer, his alleged use of that position and the purported conferment of corrupt advantages on individuals or companies associated with him.
The prosecutor told the court that exhibits bearing Emefiele’s approval signatures, alongside corporate records, allegedly linked the former CBN governor to companies associated with members of his family and other associates.
One of the companies mentioned was Architekon Nigeria Limited, which the prosecution said was connected to individuals associated with Emefiele.
Oyedepo also challenged the defence’s position concerning alleged undue advantage involving a company associated with Sa’adatu Ramalan Yaro, whom the prosecution described as an associate of the former CBN governor.
The EFCC maintained that the documentary evidence and testimony presented during the trial were sufficient to require Emefiele to respond to the allegations.
The claims remain allegations before the court and have not been established as findings of guilt.
A central part of the prosecution’s argument concerned the process through which contracts worth between $6 million and $10 million were allegedly awarded.
Oyedepo told the court that the contracts did not pass through the CBN’s Major Contracts Tender Board, which he said operated under the applicable procurement framework and was chaired by a deputy governor of the apex bank.
According to the prosecutor, contracts exceeding $1 million were required to undergo the board’s review before recommendations could be forwarded to the CBN governor for approval.
He said the board was also responsible for examining potential conflicts of interest, including whether CBN staff members held directorships in companies bidding for contracts.
Oyedepo argued that allegedly bypassing the board deprived the procurement process of the necessary scrutiny and checks.
He maintained that the circumstances surrounding the awards suggested that established procedures had been deliberately circumvented.
The prosecution also relied on testimony from a witness identified as PW10, a staff member in the CBN’s procurement department.
According to Oyedepo, the witness testified that at least three companies submitted bids for each contract under consideration.
However, the prosecutor alleged that officials were instructed 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.
The prosecution argued that such an arrangement would have undermined competition and denied other prospective bidders a fair opportunity to secure the contracts.
“The ingredient of the offence is the unfairness of the process,” Oyedepo told the court.
He maintained that the prosecution’s case did not depend solely on whether the contracts were eventually executed or whether funds could be traced directly to Emefiele.
Instead, he argued that the alleged manipulation of the procurement process and the purported conferment of undue advantage were central to the charges.
Oyedepo further told the court that the company at the centre of the allegations had operated for years without securing contracts of the type being examined.
According to the prosecution, the company began receiving such contracts after Emefiele became CBN governor and allegedly secured all 45 contracts under consideration.
The EFCC argued that the pattern of awards, when considered alongside the approval documents, corporate records and witness testimony, supported its position that a prima facie case had been established.
The defence’s no-case submission challenges whether the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient to require Emefiele to enter his defence.
The court’s determination will establish whether the trial should proceed to that stage or whether the relevant charges should be addressed otherwise under the applicable legal standards.
Emefiele has not been convicted of the offences, and the allegations must be determined through the judicial process.
