The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has requested that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) account for “over N100 billion in ‘dirty and bad notes’ and ‘other large sums of cash awaiting examination’ which are kept in various branches” of the central bank.
In a statement issued on Sunday, Kolawole Oluwadare, Deputy Director of SERAP, criticised the central bank for not disclosing the whereabouts of the specified funds.
He stated that the group sought an injunction from the Federal High Court in Lagos to “direct and compel the CBN to explain the whereabouts of the over N100 billion dirty and bad notes kept in various branches of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) since 2017.”
SERAP also contends that the court should “direct and compel the CBN to explain the whereabouts of the N7.2bn meant for the construction of the CBN Dutse branch building in 2010 and the N4.8bn meant for the renovation of the CBN Abeokuta branch in 2009 and to publish the names of contractors who collected the money.”
It additionally contends that the court should “direct and compel the CBN to explain the whereabouts of the allegedly missing outstanding loan of N1.2bn granted to the Enugu State government in 2015 and the outstanding loan of N1.9bn granted to the Anambra state government between 2015 and 2016.”
According to SERAP, in the lawsuit, “Explaining the whereabouts of the missing public funds, publishing the names of those suspected to be responsible and ensuring that they are brought to justice and the full recovery of any missing public funds would serve the public interest and end the impunity of perpetrators.”
The petition, filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers Kolawole Oluwadare and Mrs Adelanke Aremo, stated in part that “Nigerians have the right to know the whereabouts of public funds.” Granting the requested reliefs would promote Nigerians’ right to restoration, compensation, and the guarantee of non-repetition.
“Paragraph 708 of the Financial Regulations 2009 states that no payment should be given for services not yet completed or for goods yet supplied.’
“Section 35(2) of the Public Procurement Act 2007 provides that, ‘once a mobilisation fee has been paid to any supplier or contractor, no further payment shall be made to the supplier or contractor without an interim performance certificate.”
The date for the suit’s hearing is unknown.
