SERAP Sues CBN Over $6.23m Election Funds, ₦1.63trn in Unaccounted Public Money
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has sued the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) over its alleged failure to account for $6.23 million in election-related funds and more than...
- Lawsuit seeks disclosure of beneficiaries, investigation reports and recovery efforts as audit findings raise fresh questions about financial oversight, intervention loans and accountability at Nigeria’s apex bank.
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has sued the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) over its alleged failure to account for $6.23 million in election-related funds and more than ₦1.63 trillion in other public resources flagged in the Auditor-General of the Federation’s 2023 annual report
The suit, filed on Friday at the Federal High Court in Abuja under case number FHC/ABJ/CS/2450/2026, seeks an order compelling the apex bank to explain the transactions, identify the beneficiaries, disclose the status of recovery efforts and publish the findings of its internal investigation into an alleged election-funding fraud
The legal action follows an earlier seven-day ultimatum issued by SERAP demanding that the CBN account for the funds or face legal proceedings. The organisation argues that the scale and nature of the reported findings require transparent explanations, credible investigations and concrete measures to recover any money found to have been improperly paid or lost
The allegations are contained in Volume II of the Auditor-General’s 2023 annual report, published on August 7, 2026, covering financial transactions and activities from different periods between January and December 2023.
Beyond the amounts involved, the case raises fundamental questions about the accountability of public institutions, the recovery of government-backed loans, the effectiveness of internal controls at the CBN and the consequences of unresolved audit findings.
The lawsuit does not establish that the money was stolen or that any named individual is guilty of misconduct. Those questions remain subject to investigation, the evidence presented and any subsequent judicial determination.
How the ₦1.63 Trillion Figure Breaks Down
The naira-denominated amounts cited in the lawsuit relate to three major categories of public financial exposure: intervention loans to state governments, loans to distressed and liquidated banks, and funding under the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme
The largest amount is approximately ₦1.252 trillion in intervention loans granted to state governments that reportedly remained unrecovered. The Auditor-General raised concerns that the funds might have been diverted to private purposes and recommended their recovery and remittance to the treasury.
However, outstanding loans do not automatically constitute stolen public money. Establishing the extent of any loss requires information about the original lending terms, repayment schedules, outstanding balances, recoveries already made and the circumstances surrounding any defaults.
The central question is whether the CBN can provide a state-by-state account of the loans, identify the beneficiaries and demonstrate what has been done to recover the outstanding amounts
The report also identified approximately ₦116.18 billion in loans granted to distressed and liquidated banks that the CBN allegedly failed to recover. According to the findings cited by SERAP, the bank did not provide the audit team with its audited or draft financial statements and a schedule detailing recoveries and outstanding balances on the loans.
The finding raises questions about the management of legacy financial-sector exposures, the status of outstanding obligations and the documentation available to auditors. A comprehensive account would need to distinguish between amounts that remain recoverable, sums already repaid, debts settled through other arrangements and amounts lawfully written off or otherwise determined to be irrecoverable
Another ₦262.86 billion was reportedly spent under the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme, an initiative designed to support smallholder farmers, improve agricultural production and strengthen food security
The Auditor-General reportedly found that funds remained with some programme anchors and that the CBN failed to provide the list and number of beneficiaries or sufficient information about the programme’s impact for audit assessment
The findings raise questions about whether the funds reached their intended beneficiaries, how they were utilised and whether the programme delivered measurable improvements in agricultural production. They also highlight the need to distinguish between money outstanding under legitimate programme arrangements and funds that may have been diverted or improperly retained.
Together, the three naira-denominated categories amount to approximately ₦1.631 trillion, accounting for the more than ₦1.63 trillion cited in the lawsuit. This figure is separate from the $6.23 million election-related transaction.
The $6.23 Million Election-Funding Controversy
The election-related transaction is among the most sensitive aspects of the case because of the circumstances surrounding the request for the funds and the reported absence of an investigation report available to the Auditor-General.
According to the audit findings cited by SERAP, the CBN failed to investigate an alleged fraud involving $6.23 million at its Abuja branch. The report stated that the money was spent following an election-funding request purportedly made by former President Muhammadu Buhari
However, the CBN allegedly failed to provide its internal investigation report to the audit team for scrutiny and confirmation. The Auditor-General reportedly expressed concern that the money might have been lost through fraudulent payments and recommended its recovery and remittance to the treasury.
The allegation requires careful examination. A request purportedly made in Buhari’s name does not, by itself, establish that the former president personally made or authorised it. Determining what happened would require examination of the original request, approval records, payment instructions, recipients, supporting documentation and any internal or external investigation
The CBN should be able to explain whether the transaction was properly authorised, who approved the disbursement, where the money went and what steps have been taken to establish responsibility
If the request was fraudulent, an investigation should establish how it passed through the bank’s internal control systems and whether any officials or external parties acted improperly. If the payment was legitimate but inadequately documented, the bank should provide the records needed to reconcile the transaction.
Either way, the absence of an explanation acceptable to the audit team leaves an important accountability question unresolved.
The Auditor-General’s Role in Public Financial Accountability
The Auditor-General of the Federation occupies a central position in Nigeria’s public financial accountability system. The office examines public accounts, identifies irregularities and weaknesses in financial management, and makes recommendations intended to improve compliance, recover public resources and strengthen internal controls.
An audit finding, however, is not the same as a criminal conviction or a final determination that public funds have been stolen. It identifies transactions or practices requiring explanations, reconciliation, corrective action or further investigation.
In the CBN case, the reported findings cover several distinct issues, including an alleged fraudulent payment, unrecovered intervention loans, outstanding loans to distressed banks, questions about agricultural programme expenditure and deficiencies in the documentation available for audit.
The range of concerns makes the matter more significant than a single disputed transaction. Where an institution cannot provide supporting records or demonstrate that appropriate recovery measures have been undertaken, auditors may be unable to confirm whether public resources were properly authorised, utilised and accounted for.
That does not automatically prove fraud, but it creates an obligation for the institution concerned to explain the transactions and address the deficiencies identified
The effectiveness of public auditing ultimately depends on what happens after findings are published. Recommendations must be followed by documented responses, appropriate investigations, recovery measures where necessary and sanctions where misconduct is established.
Without effective follow-through, audit reports risk becoming records of recurring concerns rather than instruments for improving public financial management.
CBN Independence Does Not Mean Immunity from Accountability
SERAP argues that the CBN’s institutional independence cannot be interpreted as immunity from constitutional audit, statutory accounting requirements, public financial oversight or investigations into credible allegations of financial misconduct.
The distinction is important because central bank independence is intended to support the effective performance of monetary and financial responsibilities, not to remove the institution from the legal framework governing public accountability.
The CBN Act 2007 provides a statutory framework for the bank’s management, accounts, assets and financial reporting. The 1999 Constitution, as amended, also establishes principles concerning public administration and the obligation of the state to combat corruption and abuse of power.
SERAP has cited provisions of the Constitution, the CBN Act and Nigeria’s obligations under the United Nations Convention against Corruption as the legal basis for its demand for disclosure, investigation and recovery of any funds found to have been improperly paid or lost.
The legal question before the court is not simply whether the allegations are serious. It is whether the CBN has failed to discharge duties that the law requires it to perform and whether the remedies sought by SERAP are available in the circumstances.
The court will need to consider the applicable statutory provisions, the evidence presented and the specific reliefs requested before deciding whether to grant an order of mandamus.
Such an order is generally intended to compel a public authority to perform a public duty it is legally required to discharge. It is not, by itself, a determination of criminal guilt or an automatic order to recover every amount mentioned in an audit report.
What SERAP Wants the Court to Compel the CBN to Disclose
SERAP is seeking more than a general statement that the bank is reviewing the allegations. Its requests include an account of the affected funds, the purposes for which they were disbursed, the identities of beneficiaries and the status of repayment and recovery efforts
The organisation also wants the CBN to disclose the outcome of its internal investigation into the alleged $6.23 million election-funding fraud and identify the officers or other individuals responsible for approving and disbursing the affected funds. It is further seeking information about any disciplinary or administrative action taken against those found responsible.
The lawsuit extends to operational and asset-management issues identified in the Auditor-General’s report. These include seven boxes of currency notes awaiting examination, abandoned and unserviceable vehicles at the CBN’s Lagos branch, and an unserviceable bullion van at its Abeokuta branch.
The Auditor-General reportedly warned that the unresolved currency notes could expose the bank to mismanagement risks, while the condition of the vehicles could affect branch operations and delay critical currency-related activities.
Although these issues differ in scale from the multitrillion-naira loan exposures, they point to the importance of proper records, asset management and internal controls across the institution.
The requested disclosures would help establish whether the issues remain unresolved, whether corrective steps have been taken and whether any losses have occurred.
Implications for Public Finances and Economic Development
The figures raise broader questions about the management of public resources and the relationship between financial accountability and economic development.
The ₦1.252 trillion in intervention loans represents a substantial amount of outstanding public financial exposure. The ₦116.18 billion in loans to distressed and liquidated banks raises questions about the recovery of legacy obligations, while the ₦262.86 billion associated with the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme concerns an initiative whose stated purpose was to support agricultural production and food security.
These are different categories and should not be treated as one confirmed financial loss. Nevertheless, their combined scale makes transparent accounting particularly important.
Where public money is committed to loans, intervention schemes or development programmes, citizens should be able to determine what was disbursed, who benefited, what results were achieved and how much has been repaid or recovered.
For agricultural financing, this means demonstrating whether funding reached farmers and contributed to production. For intervention loans to states, it means clarifying repayment obligations and outstanding balances. For lending to distressed banks, it means establishing what remains recoverable and what actions have been taken.
Accountability is not limited to identifying missing money. It also includes determining whether public expenditure achieved its intended purpose and whether institutions managed financial risks responsibly.
The findings also raise questions about the effectiveness of the CBN’s internal audit systems, financial reporting procedures and mechanisms for monitoring loans and intervention programmes. If weaknesses in documentation or oversight contributed to the problems identified, addressing them would be as important as pursuing individual recoveries.
The Questions the CBN Must Answer
The central issue is whether the CBN can provide a verifiable account of the transactions identified by the Auditor-General and demonstrate that appropriate action has been taken.
The bank would need to clarify the documentation supporting the $6.23 million election-related payment, explain why its internal investigation report was reportedly unavailable to the audit team and establish the status of recovery efforts.
It would also need to provide an updated account of the state government intervention loans, the outstanding exposure involving distressed and liquidated banks, and the disbursement and recovery records associated with the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme.
The status of the currency notes awaiting examination and the unserviceable vehicles would require similar clarification, including whether the bank has implemented the Auditor-General’s recommendations.
Answering these questions would help distinguish between outstanding obligations, administrative deficiencies, potential financial losses and suspected criminal conduct. It would also give the public a clearer picture of whether the issues identified in the audit report have been addressed since the transactions took place.
The lawsuit does not, on its own, establish that every recommendation in the audit report remains unimplemented or that all the amounts cited are irrecoverable. The CBN’s response and the evidence before the court will be important in determining the status of the allegations.
A Test of Nigeria’s Accountability System
The SERAP lawsuit is ultimately a test of whether significant audit findings can be translated into verifiable explanations and corrective action.
The Auditor-General has identified transactions and weaknesses requiring attention. SERAP has now asked the court to compel the CBN to provide information and fulfil its accountability obligations. The next stages will depend on the proceedings and the bank’s response.
The case also highlights the importance of transparency in institutions whose decisions affect monetary policy, financial stability, public lending and the management of national resources.
For the CBN, a constructive response would involve providing a documented account of the transactions, explaining the status of investigations and recoveries, and demonstrating what corrective measures have been implemented, subject to lawful restrictions on disclosure.
For the Auditor-General’s office, the broader challenge is ensuring that findings receive appropriate follow-up and that outstanding recommendations do not remain unresolved indefinitely. For SERAP, the court action provides a legal route to pursue disclosure and accountability, although the success of its claims will depend on the law and evidence presented.
For the public, the essential issue is whether the money has been properly accounted for, whether any losses can be recovered and whether responsibility will be established where wrongdoing is proved.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.
Until the court considers the matter and the relevant transactions are independently established, the amounts should be understood as funds flagged in an audit report and subject to demands for explanation, rather than as a final judicial finding that the entire sum was stolen.
The broader lesson, however, is clear: public institutions must be able to explain how money entrusted to them is authorised, disbursed, safeguarded and recovered. Where serious questions arise, transparent records, credible investigations and effective legal oversight are essential to sustaining public confidence in Nigeria’s financial system.
No Comment! Be the first one.