News

May 6, 2025

Court dismisses suit seeking to nullify CBN’s circular, guidelines on BVN watch-listing

Court dismisses suit seeking to nullify CBN’s circular, guidelines on BVN watch-listing

Judicial symbol for justice

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, struck out a suit filed by one Mr Kareem Kazeem Babatunde against the Central Bank of Nigeria, Guarranty Trust Bank and First Bank of Nigeria Plc, seeking a declaration that the Central Bank of Nigeria circular dated June 11, 2015, with Reference Number: BPS/DIR/GEN/CIR/02/004 as well as Central Bank of Nigeria’s Guidelines on BVN Watch-listing dated October 18, 2017 with Reference Number: BPS/DIR/GEN/CIR/04/10 were unconstitutional, Illegal, unlawful, invalid, null and void.

Babtunde challenged the validity of freezing/ restricting of his account by First Bank of Nigeria Plc and Guaranty Trust Bank relying on the Central Bank of Nigeria circular dated June 11, 2015 with Reference Number: BPS/DIR/GEN/CIR/02/004 as well as Central Bank of Nigeria’s Guidelines on BVN Watch-listing dated October 18, 2017 with Reference Number: BPS/DIR/GEN/CIR/04/10  without a valid Court Order. 

The Central Bank of Nigeria, represented by its lead Counsel, Professor Fabian Ajogwu, OFR, SAN of Kenna, had filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Professor Ajogwu had argued in his processes that the CBN circulars were issued in good faith in line with the provisions of the CBN Act 2007. The Senior Advocate also argued that CBN qualifies as a public officer under Nigerian law, and as such, Mr Kareem Babtunde’s action was statute-barred, as it was filed outside the three-month limitation period prescribed by the Public Officers Protection Act.

The Plaintiff was represented by Kingsley Ebimoh Esq. However, Honourable Justice Owoeye agreed with the submissions of Professor Ajogwu that the CBN is indeed a public officer and therefore enjoys the protection afforded under the Public Officers Protection Act. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the suit was statute-barred and accordingly struck it out.