Reported by Simon Daniel Yusuph l Journalist at Weng Global
A Federal Ministry of Finance director has told the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja that former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor Godwin Emefiele was not a signatory to the Consolidated Revenue Account from which ₦124.86 billion was withdrawn during his tenure.
The witness, Ali Mohammed, also told the court that the money had not been traced to Emefiele’s personal account and that he was not aware of the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal.
Mohammed gave the evidence on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, while being cross-examined by Emefiele’s lawyer, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, in the former CBN governor’s ongoing trial before Justice Maryanne Anenih of the FCT High Court in Maitama, Abuja.
The testimony follows evidence presented on Tuesday, when Mohammed told the court that the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation were unaware of the ₦124.86 billion transaction.
Witness Distances Emefiele From Withdrawal
During cross-examination, defence counsel questioned Mohammed about the connection between Emefiele and the ₦124.86 billion withdrawal.
The witness told the court that the money had not been traced to Emefiele’s account and that the former CBN governor was not a signatory to the Consolidated Revenue Account.
Mohammed also said he was not aware of the public transactions that resulted in the Central Bank withdrawing the money from the federal government’s consolidated account.
The evidence is significant because the prosecution has relied on the transaction as part of its wider case involving alleged unlawful actions during Emefiele’s tenure as CBN governor.
However, the witness’s statement does not amount to a judicial finding that Emefiele bears no responsibility for the transaction. The court will ultimately assess the totality of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defence.
Finance Ministry Said It Was Unaware of the Transaction
The latest testimony followed evidence Mohammed gave on Tuesday, when he appeared as the 10th prosecution witness in the trial.
Mohammed, a director in the Ministry of Finance’s Home Finance Department, told the court that none of the three divisions under his supervision was aware of the ₦124.86 billion withdrawal.
He said the ministry only became aware of the transaction after receiving correspondence from an investigative team examining withdrawals made by the CBN.
The official said he subsequently contacted relevant divisions within the ministry to determine whether they had knowledge of or involvement in the transaction.
According to his testimony, officials in the divisions denied knowledge of the withdrawal.
Mohammed then contacted the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation to establish whether it was aware of or had authorised the transaction.
He told the court that the OAGF also responded that it was unaware of the withdrawal.
What ‘Direct Debit’ Meant
One of the documents presented in court described the ₦124.86 billion transaction as a direct debit by the CBN.
Mohammed explained to the court that the description meant the money had been withdrawn by the apex bank without recourse to another government office.
He said the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation would ordinarily receive a directive before a withdrawal from the relevant government account was made.
The witness further told the court that the documents before him did not indicate that the Federal Ministry of Finance had directed the OAGF to make the withdrawal from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The correspondence between the Finance Ministry and the OAGF was tendered by the prosecution and admitted in evidence after the defence raised no objection.
Earlier Evidence Linked the Withdrawal to CBN Operations
The prosecution’s case concerning the ₦124.86 billion withdrawal had already featured in earlier proceedings.
In May 2026, Hamisu Abdullahi, a CBN official who testified as the ninth prosecution witness, told the court that ₦124.86 billion had been debited from the Consolidated Revenue Account without National Assembly approval.
Abdullahi said the money was used to settle what he described as CBN internal debts.
According to his earlier testimony, the debts accumulated after the CBN received directives from the federal government to make certain payments without corresponding funds being provided for those obligations.
The witness said the unpaid obligations eventually accumulated to ₦124.86 billion and that the CBN subsequently turned to the Consolidated Revenue Account.
The Consolidated Revenue Account is a central government account into which federal revenues are paid and from which authorised government expenditure is made.
The legality and circumstances of the withdrawal are therefore central to the questions being examined by the court.
Defence Focuses on Emefiele’s Direct Connection
The latest cross-examination appears to have focused on whether the evidence before the court directly connects Emefiele personally to the disputed withdrawal.
Mohammed told the court that he had not seen documents indicating that Emefiele was a signatory to the account.
He also said he was not shown any document by investigators that specifically implicated Emefiele in the withdrawal.
The witness further told the court that he was invited by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in connection with the transaction but was not questioned about the circumstances that led to the withdrawal and did not make a statement concerning it.
That evidence could become an important issue for the defence as the trial progresses.
However, the prosecution may still rely on other witnesses, documents or evidence to establish its allegations against the former CBN governor.
The court has not yet ruled on the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.
Hajj Subsidy Claim Raised in Court
During the cross-examination, the defence also asked Mohammed whether he was aware that the ₦124.86 billion had been used to subsidise Hajj pilgrimage on the instruction of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
The witness said he was not aware of such an arrangement.
The exchange introduces another issue into the debate over the purpose of the funds.
However, Mohammed’s statement was that he did not know about the alleged Hajj-related use of the money. It should therefore not be reported as confirmation that the funds were or were not used for that purpose.
The court would need to consider documentary and testimonial evidence before reaching any conclusion about the destination or purpose of the money.
The Prosecution’s Wider Case Against Emefiele
Emefiele is facing prosecution by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission over allegations connected to his tenure as CBN governor.
The current proceedings involve a four-count charge concerning alleged disobedience to lawful directives and alleged unlawful acts connected to the controversial naira redesign policy.
The ₦124.86 billion withdrawal is one of the financial transactions that has featured during the proceedings.
The prosecution has presented several witnesses from both the CBN and the Federal Ministry of Finance to establish its allegations.
Earlier testimony from CBN officials focused on the circumstances surrounding the movement of the money and the approvals, or alleged lack of approvals, associated with the transaction.
The defence has sought to challenge the prosecution’s evidence and establish whether Emefiele can be directly connected to the specific acts alleged.
Why the Testimony Matters
The latest evidence matters because criminal responsibility must ultimately be established through admissible evidence connecting an accused person to the alleged offence.
The fact that a transaction occurred during an official’s tenure does not, by itself, establish that the individual personally authorised or benefited from it.
That is particularly important in a case involving a large government transaction and multiple institutions.
The prosecution must establish its allegations against Emefiele in accordance with the applicable legal standard, while the defence is entitled to challenge the evidence and present its own case.
Mohammed’s testimony that Emefiele was not a signatory to the account and that the money was not traced to him therefore becomes part of the evidentiary record the court must consider.
It does not, however, settle the case.
No Final Finding Yet on the ₦124.86bn
The latest testimony should not be interpreted as a declaration by the court that the withdrawal was lawful.
Nor does it establish that no government official authorised or directed the transaction.
The witness’s evidence was narrower: he said the Ministry of Finance and OAGF were unaware of the transaction, that he had not seen evidence naming Emefiele as a signatory, and that the withdrawal had not been traced to Emefiele’s account.
The distinction is important because the court is still hearing evidence.
The prosecution and defence will have opportunities to present and challenge evidence before the judge determines the issues raised in the case.
Earlier Documents Admitted in Evidence
The proceedings have also produced documentary evidence relating to CBN transactions.
During Tuesday’s sitting, the prosecution tendered an email generated from the CBN’s computer system.
Hamisu Abdullahi, the CBN’s Director of Banking Services and the ninth prosecution witness, identified the email, which he said contained a directive from the then CBN governor concerning the recovery of a ₦1.4 billion debit in a receivables account from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The email and its accompanying certificate of compliance were admitted in evidence after the defence raised no objection.
The document is separate from the question of whether Emefiele was a signatory to the Consolidated Revenue Account and should not automatically be treated as proof of personal responsibility for the ₦124.86 billion transaction.
Court Proceedings Continue
The case remains ongoing before Justice Maryanne Anenih.
The court had adjourned proceedings to October 7 for further cross-examination and continuation of the trial following the testimony of Mohammed and the admission of documentary evidence.
The continuing proceedings are expected to provide further information about the disputed financial transactions and the prosecution’s broader allegations against Emefiele.
As the defence challenges individual aspects of the prosecution’s case, the court will ultimately determine which evidence is sufficient to establish the allegations before it.
What Happens Next?
The next stage of the proceedings will depend on the completion of the current witness evidence and the presentation of further evidence by the prosecution and defence.
The defence is expected to continue challenging the prosecution’s witnesses and documents where necessary.
The prosecution, meanwhile, will have to establish the allegations contained in its charge through evidence presented before the court.
For now, the latest testimony provides an important qualification to the narrative surrounding the ₦124.86 billion withdrawal: a prosecution witness has told the court that Emefiele was not a signatory to the Consolidated Revenue Account and that the funds were not traced to his account.
That evidence will form part of the record the judge must consider alongside the testimony of other witnesses and the documentary evidence already admitted.
No final determination of Emefiele’s responsibility for the transaction has been made by the court.
The Larger Significance
The case has wider implications for public financial management and accountability in Nigeria.
The dispute over the ₦124.86 billion withdrawal raises questions about how transactions involving federal government funds are authorised, documented and monitored.
It also highlights the importance of clear institutional responsibilities between the CBN, the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.
For the public, the central issue is not simply the size of the transaction but whether government funds were moved in accordance with the law and established financial controls.
The court proceedings provide an opportunity for those questions to be tested through evidence rather than speculation.
For Emefiele, the outcome will depend on the totality of the evidence presented against him and the arguments advanced by his defence team.
For the Nigerian financial system, the case underscores the continuing importance of transparent controls over public funds and clear accountability for major government transactions.
Weng Global – stories beyond borders
Sources
- Federal Capital Territory High Court, Maitama, Abuja
- Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
- Federal Ministry of Finance
- Premium Times
- TheCable
- BusinessDay
- Business Times Nigeria
