By Iroyin Yoruba Television
A Federal Ministry of Finance official has told the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, that N124.86 billion was withdrawn from Nigeria's Consolidated Revenue Account during the tenure of former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor Godwin Emefiele without the approvals that were required for such transactions.
The testimony was given on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, during the ongoing criminal trial of the former CBN governor, in a case being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The witness, identified as Ali Muhammed, is a director in the Federal Ministry of Finance and appeared as the 10th prosecution witness in the proceedings.
His testimony focused on the procedures governing withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Account and the approvals required before funds could be released.
The evidence is significant because the Consolidated Revenue Account is a central component of Nigeria's public financial management system.
The account is used to receive government revenues and plays an important role in the management of public funds.
Government financial regulations require specific approvals and procedures for withdrawals from public accounts. These controls are designed to ensure that public money is released for authorised purposes and that transactions can be properly documented and audited.
According to the witness, withdrawals amounting to N124.86 billion were made from the account during Emefiele's tenure without the necessary approvals from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and the Federal Ministry of Finance.
The testimony forms part of the prosecution's effort to establish its allegations against the former CBN governor.
Emefiele has been facing prosecution over allegations connected to the handling of public funds during his time at the apex bank.
The former CBN governor has denied wrongdoing in the case.
The court proceedings are continuing, meaning that the evidence presented by the prosecution remains subject to challenge by the defence.
The latest testimony is therefore not a judicial finding that Emefiele committed the alleged offences.
Rather, it represents evidence being presented by the prosecution as it attempts to establish its case.
The defence will have an opportunity to challenge the evidence and question the witness as the trial progresses.
The issue of approvals is particularly important in public finance because government institutions operate under established financial controls.
Such controls are intended to prevent unauthorised spending, protect public resources and create a clear audit trail for transactions.
Where large sums are withdrawn without required approvals, questions can arise about who authorised the transaction, why the normal procedure was not followed and how the funds were ultimately used.
The N124.86 billion figure cited in court is substantial and highlights the scale of the financial transactions being examined in the case.
For a country managing significant fiscal pressures, the proper administration of public funds is particularly important.
Nigeria's government relies on revenue from multiple sources to finance infrastructure, salaries, public services, social programmes and other obligations.
The effectiveness of public financial management can therefore have direct consequences for citizens.
When public funds are not properly controlled, the government can face difficulties ensuring that money reaches its intended destination.
The court testimony also illustrates the importance of institutional checks and balances within government.
The Federal Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation have specific responsibilities in the management and oversight of public funds.
The CBN, meanwhile, has a distinct role as Nigeria's central bank.
The interaction between the central bank and other government institutions must therefore operate within established financial rules.
The witness's evidence suggests that the prosecution is examining whether those institutional boundaries and approval procedures were followed during the period under investigation.
The court will ultimately have to determine the significance of the evidence and whether it proves the specific criminal allegations contained in the charges.
That determination will depend on the complete body of evidence presented during the trial rather than the testimony of a single witness.
The case also highlights the importance of documentation in financial crime investigations.
Large government transactions generally generate records involving payment instructions, approvals, account entries, correspondence and other financial documents.
Investigators can use these records to establish who initiated transactions, who approved them and where the money went.
The prosecution's reliance on a Finance Ministry official suggests that documentary evidence and institutional procedures are central to the case.
The witness's understanding of the approval process may help the court assess whether particular withdrawals complied with government financial regulations.
The defence, meanwhile, may seek to challenge the witness's interpretation of the rules or provide explanations for the transactions.
Such exchanges are a normal part of criminal proceedings and allow the court to consider competing accounts before reaching a decision.
The case involving Emefiele has attracted considerable public attention because of the central position he occupied in Nigeria's financial system.
As CBN governor, he was responsible for one of the country's most important economic institutions.
The central bank manages monetary policy, oversees financial institutions and performs other responsibilities that have major implications for the Nigerian economy.
Allegations concerning financial transactions during the tenure of a former central bank governor therefore attract scrutiny because of the potential impact on confidence in public institutions.
The proceedings also take place within a wider national conversation about accountability and the management of government resources.
Nigeria has repeatedly faced concerns about corruption, financial leakages and weak enforcement of public financial controls.
Anti-corruption agencies have argued that stronger investigations and prosecutions are necessary to deter the misuse of public resources.
At the same time, defendants in corruption cases are entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence until a court determines otherwise.
The Emefiele trial illustrates the balance between these principles.
The EFCC has the responsibility of presenting evidence supporting its allegations, while the defence has the right to challenge that evidence.
The judge will ultimately determine whether the prosecution has proved the charges beyond the required legal standard.
The N124.86 billion figure presented in court could become an important part of that assessment.
The prosecution will need to establish not merely that withdrawals occurred but also how those transactions relate to the specific offences alleged against the defendant.
It will also need to demonstrate the relevant elements of each charge through admissible evidence.
Financial cases can be particularly complex because transactions may involve several institutions, officials and stages of approval.
The court may therefore hear testimony from additional witnesses and examine financial documents before reaching a conclusion.
For investigators, tracing the movement of funds is often central to establishing whether a transaction constituted legitimate government expenditure or an unauthorised financial operation.
If the prosecution can demonstrate a clear connection between the disputed withdrawals and the allegations in the charge, the evidence could strengthen its case.
If the defence provides a lawful explanation for the transactions or successfully challenges the prosecution's interpretation of the financial procedures, the court will have to take those arguments into account.
The latest proceedings also raise broader questions about how government institutions can strengthen internal controls.
Regardless of the eventual outcome of the trial, large financial transactions require robust oversight mechanisms.
Approval procedures should be clearly documented, responsibilities should be assigned to identifiable officials and transactions should be subject to independent review.
Auditing institutions also play an important role in identifying irregularities before they become larger problems.
The case demonstrates why financial controls are important even within institutions with significant operational independence.
The CBN has responsibilities that require it to act independently in monetary policy matters, but financial transactions involving public resources must still comply with applicable laws and regulations.
Clear institutional boundaries can help prevent misunderstandings and protect public funds.
The court proceedings may also provide an opportunity for government agencies to examine lessons from the transactions being challenged.
Where weaknesses are identified, institutions can strengthen approval systems, improve digital tracking and ensure that senior officials cannot bypass established controls without detection.
Technology can play a significant role in this process.
Automated approval systems can record the identity of officials authorising transactions and create time-stamped records that are difficult to alter.
Integrated financial-management systems can also allow government institutions to monitor transactions across agencies and identify unusual movements of funds.
However, technology must be supported by strong institutional accountability.
A system is only effective when officials are required to follow it and when violations result in appropriate consequences.
The prosecution's evidence in the Emefiele case is therefore relevant not only to the individual defendant but also to the wider question of public financial governance.
The court will continue to examine the evidence as the trial progresses.
For now, the testimony that N124.86 billion was withdrawn without the stated approvals remains an allegation supported by prosecution evidence rather than a final determination of guilt.
The defence will have the opportunity to challenge the witness and present its own account of the transactions.
The outcome of the case will ultimately depend on the full evidence and the court's assessment of the applicable law.
The proceedings nevertheless underscore the importance of transparency in the handling of government funds.
Nigeria's citizens have a legitimate interest in knowing that public resources are managed according to established rules and that allegations of financial misconduct are investigated through lawful processes.
As the trial continues, additional witnesses and documents may provide more information about the transactions examined by the EFCC.
The court's eventual decision will determine whether the prosecution has established the offences alleged against Emefiele.
Until then, the latest testimony remains one part of an ongoing judicial process examining financial transactions during his tenure as CBN governor.