Commercial banks were charged by Chinedu Eneanya, a witness for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Mr. Godwin Emefiele, on Tuesday for the shortage that followed the federal government’s Naira redesign policy in late 2022 and early 2023.
The disclosure was revealed by the Commission investigator under cross-examination by Mr. Olalekan Ojo, SAN, Emefiele’s attorney.
The former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria is on trial for four charges that include revamping the Naira without the Board of the CBN’s and the CBN’s Committee of Governors’ (COG) approval and without previous President Muhammadu Buhari’s consent.
Between October 19, 2022, and March 5, 2023, Emefiele approved the printing of 375,520,000 pieces of color-swapped N1,000 notes at a total cost of N11,052,068,062 without the CBN Board’s recommendation or the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s strict approval, according to the anti-graft agency’s lawsuit, FTC/HC/CR/264/2024. This, among other things, caused harm to the public.
This offense violated Section 123 of the Penal Code, Cap 89 Laws of the Federation, 1990, and was penalized under the same statute, according to the charge.
However, the defendant refuted the charge.
The witness presented video evidence during his Evidence-in-Chief, asserting that the Emefiele-led CBN’s redesign of the Naira notes caused immense suffering for numerous Nigerians.
The head of the Inter Ministerial Probe Panel and seventh prosecution witness (PW7), Eneanya, however, disclosed alleged violations by certain commercial banks in the nation at the start of the policy in 2022/2023 during cross-examination on Tuesday.
However, he stated that he couldn’t remember how many banks had administrators hoarding currency.
“Can you confirm to the Honorable Court that bank officials were hoarding mints?” came the question.
“I know that,” he said, “but I can’t be specific.”
Moreover, the witness was unable to establish if bank personnel suspected of hoarding the cash were arrested by the anti-graft agency.
“His beat was specific; whether his (naira redesign) was a valid approval,” said A.O. Mohammed, the prosecution’s attorney, in response to the query.
However, Emefiele’s attorney retorted that the witness was not restricted to his evidence in chief and that, in his capacity as an investigator, he was also empowered to initiate an arrest.
Ojo emphasized that the inquiry was also required because the anti-graft agency claims that Emefiele made Nigerians suffer excessive hardship because of the scarcity of the redesigned currency.
The judge responded by asking the witness to respond to the question after verifying his designation.
Eneanya responded, “I told this court that the EFCC established a task force; I didn’t say it was my team.” He stated that he was unaware of the steps taken by the EFCC against the bank personnel that resulted in the alleged violations.
When questioned about whose authority they visited the nation’s commercial institutions, the witness responded that he was “not privy to that information.”
Defensive attorney’s response was to ask for a delay and to be provided with all case-related documents.
In a brief order, Justice Maryanne Anenih postponed the proceeding of the witness’s cross-examination until March 19.
The witness claimed that earlier in the day’s proceedings, Ahmed Halilu, the Managing Director (MD) of Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Plc (NSPM), had given the EFCC team access to the email exchange between De La Rue and himself.
“My team had access to the email from the MD of NMPS, and it was then opened in front of the team,” he stated.
Although he was unable to remember every statement Halilu had written, he acknowledged that he had done so.
This is what made Ojo ask for the statements.
If the NSPM had ever created naira notes, he “could not remember,” he responded when questioned.
Furthermore, the witness was unable to remember how many different currencies commercial banks had at their disposal.
To help him remember things, he asked to be permitted to look at the records.
In response to the question of whether the EFCC team contacted the commercial banks to verify the precise sums provided to them, he stated: “We have a team that went nationwide in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies, taking stock and making sure that those currencies were disclosed to the public.”
The team maintained a log of the inventory of the resources made accessible to commercial banks, he added.
Ojo also requested the defense to be presented with the records.
Regarding whether the EFCC also inspected bank vaults, the witness stated that he “was not there in all the teams.”
15 minutes prior to the start of the day’s hearings, Emefiele’s attorney told the court that they had only received the Investigative Report, which the defense had requested at the previous hearing.
But, according to the EFCC attorney, “the decision to produce the Investigative Report was not made to deprive the defendant and his counsel of the opportunity to ask for the said document.”
He pointed out that the witness responded to the court’s request to deliver the document.
