Account For Missing N100bn Dirty Notes, Group Tells CBN

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has asked the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to account for “over N100 billion ‘dirty and bad notes’ and ‘other large sums of cash awaiting examination’ which are kept in various branches” of the apex bank.

In a statement issued on Sunday, Kolawole Oluwadare, the Deputy Director of SERAP, criticized the apex bank for not providing information about the location of the mentioned amount.

He said the group approached the Federal High Court in Lagos seeking an order to compel the CBN 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 wants the court to “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 also wants the court to “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.”

In the suit, SERAP is arguing that “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 suit filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers Kolawole Oluwadare and Mrs Adelanke Aremo, read in part: “Nigerians have the right to know the whereabouts of the public funds. Granting the reliefs sought would advance the right of Nigerians to restitution, compensation and guarantee of non-repetition.

“Paragraph 708 of the Financial Regulations 2009 provides that, ‘on no account should payment be made for services not yet performed or for goods not yet supplied.’

“Section 35(2) of the Public Procurement Act 2007 provides that, ‘once a mobilization 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.”

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.