Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC,) insisted on Monday at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory that the signatures of late President Muhammadu Buhari and former Boss Mustapha, secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), were forged by unscrupulous Nigerians to defraud the country of $6,230,000.

 Mr Godwin Emefiele, former CBN governor

Mr Chinedu Eneanya, assistant commander II, EFCC, told the court that five officials of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) moved the money out of the apex bank under the guise that it was meant for the payment of foreign election observers in the 2023 general elections.

The anti-graft agency testified on Monday at the resumed trial of  Mr Godwin Emefiele, former CBN governor, on a 20-count charge of criminal breach of trust brought against him by the federal government.

Emefiele is being prosecuted by the EFCC in the charge marked FCT/HC/CR/577/2023.

He is standing trial on an amended 20-count charge bordering on criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of office, conspiracy to obtain by false pretence, and obtaining money by false pretence while serving as CBN governor.

Emefiele was, among others, alleged to have knowingly obtained by false pretence the sum of $6,230,000 purportedly meant for international election observers for the 2023 general election.

The EFCC accused him of conferring corrupt advantages on two companies — April 1616 Nigeria Ltd and Architekon Nigeria Ltd.

He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges during his arraignment.

At Monday’s proceedings, Chinedu Eneanya, who served on the probe panel, was called to testify as the 13th prosecution witness (PW13).

In his evidence-in-chief, the witness told the court that his team was assigned to investigate the matter.

“The investigation revealed that the money, $6.2 million, was removed from the coffers of the CBN for a purported funding of foreign observers for the 2023 elections.”

He told the court that those connected with the movement of the fund were interviewed.

The witness said documents were recovered from the CBN regarding the release of the money.

Eneanya told the court that investigations also revealed that the signatures of the then President, Muhammadu Buhari, and then Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Boss Mustapha, were forged to collect the money.

He said forensic examination was carried out, which established that the two signatures were forged.

Drama, however, ensued during cross-examination by Mathew Burkaa, SAN, counsel to Emefiele, when the witness admitted that forensic examination was not carried out on Emefiele’s signature despite Emefiele’s claim that his signature was also forged by the culprits.

The witness said five CBN officers signed the internal memo that authorised the release of the money and that none of them is standing trial alongside Emefiele, but were only suspended by the CBN.

The witness told the court that he was not the one who took Emefiele’s extra-judicial statements.

When asked if any of the investigators established that Emefiele received any money, he said Emefiele’s lawyer, Ifeanyi Omeke, said he received money on behalf of Emefiele, but that he did not interview Emefiele on the claim.

Earlier, Emefiele’s counsel had frowned at bringing another Investigating Police Officer (IPO) on the ground that the witness would say the same thing said by two other IPOs.

He also drew the attention of the court to the last proceedings where the EFCC told the court that it was bringing its last witness.

“We understand their strategy. It seems they are ridiculing the court. All the same, we are ready to go on.”

Emefiele, through his counsel, applied for the foreclosure of the EFCC’s case after prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, told the court that he was not sure of bringing two witnesses on April 28.

Oyedepo informed the court that the EFCC was yet to obtain the subpoena from the court and that the witnesses were outside jurisdiction in Benin and Lagos.

When the court asked the prosecution how many more witnesses it intended to call, Oyedepo said two more and mentioned their names as Jim Obessa and CP Eloho Okpozikbo.

The court then asked the prosecution to bring all the witnesses between April 27 and 28.

At this point, Burkaa applied to the court that the EFCC’s case be foreclosed if it failed to bring the two remaining witnesses to court on April 28.

“If the witnesses do not come on April 28, we apply that they should be foreclosed. Justice is both for the prosecution and the defendant.

“This is an antic by the prosecution to put maximum hardship on the defendant. Please let it be on record that the prosecution has severally brought out this scenario,” he said.

Responding, Oyedepo told the court that he was not there to be a clog in the expeditious trial of the case and prayed the court to refuse the application to shut the doors against the prosecution.

Justice Hamza Muazu advised parties to reserve their arguments till their final addresses and directed Oyedepo to go to the court registrar for the signing of the subpoena.

Justice Muazu then adjourned till April 28 for continuation of trial.

Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC,) has declared Halimat Adenike Tejuosho, a women leader of the City Boys Movement, wanted.

Halimat Adenike Tejuosho,

A notice issued by the EFCC on Monday via X said Tejuosho has been declared wanted over an alleged case of obtaining money by false pretence.

The notice was signed by Dele Oyewale, head of Media and Publicity for the EFCC.

The anti-graft agency called on members of the public with useful information about her whereabouts to contact any of its offices nationwide.

The Commission also urged the members of the public to reach out via its official phone lines or email, or report to the nearest police station or other security agencies.

Recall that the City Boy Movement recently appointed Tejuosho as the South-West Zonal Women Leader.

According to a statement signed by the Movement, Tejuosho is to provide strategic leadership and coordination for women-focused activities in the zone, driving political mobilization, civic engagement, and advocacy.

Decision to cancel the $32.8 million fine previously imposed on Meta for alleged data privacy violations was taken as far back as October 30, 2025.

The development has raised concerns over the country’s approach to data protection enforcement and regulatory transparency.

This followed a confidential, out-of-court settlement singed by Nigerian Data Protection Commission (NDPC) with Meta, effectively waiving the fine imposed earlier that year.

This deal, sanctioned by a Federal High Court, resolved disputes over behavioural advertising and user data transfers without Meta paying the penalty.

Recall that the NDPC claimed that it launched investigation in September 2023 that examined Meta’s handling of personal data from more than 60 million Nigerian users.

The NDPC had accused Meta of several breaches, including the absence of explicit consent for behavioural advertising, unauthorised cross-border data transfers, the collection of data from non-users, and the deployment of algorithms that could expose users to financial and health risks.

At the time, the regulator described the penalty as part of efforts to strengthen digital rights protections in Africa’s most populous country, aligning Nigeria with global enforcement trends in the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union, where Meta and other major technology firms have faced multibillion-dollar fines for similar violations.

However, documents from a subsequent settlement indicate that Nigeria reversed its position in October 2025.

Under the agreement, Meta was absolved of the $32.8 million penalty and required only to cover legal fees incurred by the government during court proceedings challenging the NDPC’s final orders.

The settlement was signed on 30 October 2025 and later validated by the Federal High Court in Abuja on 3 November 2025.

Despite this judicial confirmation, the terms of the agreement were not made public at the time, and only recently emerged through disclosed documentation.

The development has triggered questions about transparency in regulatory enforcement, particularly given the scale of the initial allegations and the number of affected users.

Iliya-Ezekiel Ndatse, data protection lawyer, said the outcome weakens regulatory deterrence.

“Removing penalties after such findings reduces the effectiveness of enforcement actions and weakens the credibility of compliance obligations,” he noted.

The case has also drawn comparisons with Nigeria’s previous dispute involving Twitter, now rebranded as X, which was banned in 2021 before the two parties reached a negotiated resolution.