A document pulls the curtain back
A memorandum written by former Central Bank of Nigeria governor Godwin Emefiele to ex-president Muhammadu Buhari has revealed details of how approval was sought and granted for the naira redesign policy that upended Nigeria’s cash economy in late 2022 and early 2023.
The memo, tendered in court as part of ongoing legal proceedings, outlines consultations between the Central Bank of Nigeria and the presidency before the policy was announced and implemented.
What the memo says
According to excerpts presented in court, Emefiele informed Buhari that the redesign proposal was anchored on statutory powers of the Central Bank of Nigeria, citing currency integrity concerns, counterfeiting risks, and the need to manage liquidity outside the formal banking system.
The memo reportedly sought presidential consent in line with constitutional and statutory requirements, after which the policy was cleared for rollout.
Where responsibility is now being debated
Legal analysts say the document complicates the question of accountability. While the CBN has operational independence, major currency changes require presidential approval, blurring the line between institutional initiative and executive consent.
The revelation strengthens arguments by Emefiele’s legal team that the policy was not a unilateral act, but one undertaken with the knowledge and approval of the presidency.
Why this trail matters now
The naira redesign remains one of the most disruptive monetary interventions in Nigeria’s recent history, triggering cash shortages, public unrest, and legal battles across multiple states.
As courts examine Emefiele’s conduct in office, the memo introduces a paper trail that may shape how responsibility is apportioned — not just to individuals, but across institutions involved in the decision-making chain.
When policy meets the courtroom
The memo’s emergence in court underscores how economic policy decisions can acquire legal consequences long after implementation. Judges are now being asked to determine whether statutory compliance and executive approval shield policymakers from personal liability, or whether broader harm and procedural lapses override institutional consent.
What the fallout could redefine
If courts accept the approval trail as sufficient authorisation, it may recalibrate how liability is assessed for controversial policy decisions. If not, it could narrow the protective scope of executive consent — with lasting implications for central bank autonomy, presidential oversight, and future monetary interventions.
This is IDNN. Independent. Digital. Uncompromising.
