Emefiele earned $6m in estacodes for international travel as CBN governor, reveals court document

A certified court document has revealed that former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, earned over $6 million in estacodes for international travel and a total annual remuneration of N350 million during his tenure, in addition to receiving N75 million in quarterly reimbursements.

These revelations emerged in the ruling of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, which overturned a previous final forfeiture order against a series of properties and assets linked to Emefiele.

The court, in a split decision delivered on April 9, 2025, held that the lower court had not fully evaluated the totality of the evidence presented in the original forfeiture proceedings.

Nigerian court unfreezes N89 million in bank accounts previously indicted for illegal crypto dealings

As such, it set aside the ruling of the Federal High Court and ordered a fresh hearing of the case.

“At the risk of prolixity, it should be noted that the appellant stated at paragraph 5 (a), (r) and (v) of his affidavit to show cause, why the properties should not be forfeited. When the appellant left Zenith bank, his severance allowance was N1,750,000,000, while his Zenith bank shares is valued at N500,000,000, and as central bank governor his annual pay was N350,000,000 with quarterly reimbursement of N75,000,000, excluding estacodes paid at $6,285,000; see page 531 of the record of appeal,” the court document read.

The decision stemmed from a controversial judgment issued on November 1, 2024, by the Federal High Court in Lagos, which had granted the request of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to permanently forfeit several high-value properties allegedly owned by Emefiele to the Federal Government.

These properties, according to the EFCC, were suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity. The anti-graft agency had told the court that the acquisitions were made through proxies, corporate entities, and vehicles that could not be directly traced to Emefiele. In its submission, the EFCC stated that the former CBN Governor had failed to provide evidence of legitimate funds used in the transactions and that none of the companies in whose names the properties were acquired had come forward to challenge the forfeiture.

However, in his defence, Emefiele presented documents showing his income history from Zenith Bank, where he previously served as Managing Director, and his 10-year tenure as CBN Governor. It was on this basis that the court began to question whether the EFCC had sufficiently proven that the properties were acquired illegally.

Justice Abdulazeez Anka, who delivered the lead judgment, observed that Emefiele’s total declared earnings could indeed afford the assets in question. He further noted that there were material conflicts in the affidavit evidence submitted by both parties, which could only be resolved through oral testimonies and cross-examination.

The court found that the reliance on affidavit evidence alone during the initial proceedings at the Federal High Court did not allow for proper scrutiny of the claims and counterclaims.

Justice Anka stated that the issues at hand required a trial that would involve calling witnesses and cross-examining the deponents of the affidavits submitted.

He added that the trial court should not have dismissed Emefiele’s motion for a stay of proceedings and failed to entertain his motion challenging the EFCC’s counter-affidavit.

The court therefore ruled that the case be remitted to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reallocation to a different judge for a full retrial.

Justice Mohammed Mustapha, who agreed with the lead judgment, added that it was not unusual under Nigerian law for property to be purchased by one person and held in trust by another. He also took note of Emefiele’s Code of Conduct forms from 2014 and 2019, which declared assets jointly owned with his wife.

However, he clarified that most of the disputed properties were acquired between 2020 and 2023, which were outside the scope of the previously filed asset declarations.

He stressed that the correct form for scrutiny would have been the next mandatory asset declaration—expected in 2023—rather than earlier ones that could not conceivably account for assets acquired in subsequent years.