The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, urged Justice Hamza Mu’azu of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Maitama, Abuja, to dismiss a no-case submission filed by former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele, insisting that the evidence presented by the prosecution established a prima facie case 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 include allegations relating to the withdrawal of $6.23 million and the conferment of corrupt advantage in the award of CBN contracts.
Prosecution counsel and Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, argued that the purpose of a no-case submission was 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.
He maintained that requiring Emefiele to enter his defence would not amount to asking him to prove his innocence but would give him the opportunity to respond to the issues raised by the prosecution’s evidence.
On the contract-related counts, Oyedepo identified the elements of the alleged offences as the defendant’s status as a public officer, his use of that position and the conferment of corrupt advantage on his relations or associates.
He told the court that exhibits bearing Emefiele’s approval signatures, alongside corporate records, linked the defendant to companies associated with his wife and brother-in-law, including Architekon Nigeria Limited.
Oyedepo argued that it would be untenable for the defence to contend that the prosecution had failed to establish evidence of undue advantage in relation to a company allegedly associated with Sa’adatu Ramalan Yaro, an associate of the defendant.
The prosecution maintained that the contracts, valued at between $6 million and $10 million, did not pass through the Major Contracts Tender Board, which Oyedepo said was established under the Public Procurement Act, 2007, and chaired by a CBN deputy governor.
According to him, contracts exceeding $1 million were required to be reviewed by the board before recommendations were forwarded to the governor for approval.
He explained that the board was also responsible for checking whether CBN staff members were directors of companies bidding for contracts.
Oyedepo argued that bypassing the board prevented the necessary checks and scrutiny, adding that the circumstances suggested that the procurement process had been deliberately circumvented.
Citing the testimony of PW10, a procurement department staff member, the prosecution 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 in-house prices and subsequently quoted the exact prices, thereby depriving other prospective bidders of a fair opportunity.
“The ingredient of the offence is the unfairness of the process,” Oyedepo said.
He argued that the prosecution’s case was not defeated by the defence’s claim that the contracts had been executed or that the money had not been traced directly to Emefiele, stressing that the alleged unfairness in the award process was central to the charges.
The prosecution also submitted that the company had existed for years without winning contracts of the kind in question 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 the defendant’s knowledge of the company and its directors.
He also maintained that approving the contracts was distinct from the recommendations made by officials, arguing that Emefiele ought to have referred the contracts back to the board rather than approve them.
“The recommendation would never be an approval,” he told the court.
Oyedepo urged the court to distinguish the judicial authority cited by the defence, arguing that the case concerned money laundering and proof of a predicate offence, whereas the present charges centred on the alleged conferment of corrupt advantage through an unfair procurement process.
On the alleged $6.23 million withdrawal, the prosecution submitted that the money was withdrawn from the CBN between February and around June, before Emefiele’s removal from office, purportedly on the strength of letters attributed to former President Muhammadu Buhari and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Boss 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 further relied on the testimony of PW15, who said the withdrawal triggered an automatic system notification to Emefiele because the relevant account went into debit. The defendant allegedly took no action following the notification.
The prosecution argued that the evidence raised questions of criminal negligence and breach of trust, given Emefiele’s alleged dominion and control over the funds.
Oyedepo also cited testimony that the money was released to an individual on Emefiele’s instructions and that part of it was allegedly used to renovate one of the defendant’s properties, while the balance was recovered from the individual.
Addressing the defence’s argument that the prosecution’s case was speculative, Oyedepo submitted that “there is a difference between speculation and inferences drawn from legally admissible evidence.”
He further argued that where a forged document was used as an intermediary in a fraudulent transaction and the resulting benefit was traceable to a defendant, the circumstances could support the conclusion that the defendant forged the document or procured its forgery.
On the defence’s claim that the prosecution had not conducted a forensic examination of Emefiele’s signature, Oyedepo maintained that this did not automatically defeat the forgery allegation, arguing that the court could compare the disputed signatures in accordance with the law.
Oyedepo also drew the court’s attention to a Supreme Court decision concerning approximately $2 million and certain properties, urging the court to consider it in the context of the prosecution’s case.
Opposing the application, defence counsel Mathew Burkaa, SAN, had 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 stated that the date for ruling on the no-case submission would be communicated to the parties.
