ACCESS BANK FACES QUESTIONS OVER ALLEGED ₦515M FUNDS DIVERSION AS EFCC PROBES FORMER OPERATIONS HEAD

Investigation raises concerns over internal controls after alleged withdrawals from DAHUA Paper Company’s account; former banker also faces separate trial over alleged $510,000 diversion

Access Bank Nigeria Plc is facing renewed scrutiny over its internal control systems following allegations that ₦515 million belonging to DAHUA Paper Company was diverted through three unauthorised transactions allegedly involving a former senior operations officer at its Okpara Avenue branch in Enugu State.

The allegations, which are being investigated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), have brought questions about transaction authorisation, account restrictions and institutional oversight into focus, particularly the safeguards banks deploy to protect customers against potential insider-related financial misconduct.

At the centre of the investigation is Obinna Nwaobi, a former Head of Operations at the Access Bank branch, who is alleged to have authorised transactions involving ₦200 million, ₦150 million and ₦165 million on 17 July 2024.

According to information attributed to the EFCC, the transactions were allegedly carried out using forged documents and involved funds held in the Debt Service Reserve Account (DSRA) of DAHUA Paper Company.

The bank reportedly petitioned the anti-graft agency on 22 June over the transactions, alleging that Nwaobi was responsible for authorising them.

The EFCC’s account of the incident raises questions about how funds held in an account established for a specific financial obligation could allegedly be withdrawn without the prescribed approvals.

The commission reportedly disclosed that the company’s account had been reactivated in June 2024 but was not subjected to a Post No Debit (PND) restriction, a banking measure designed to prevent withdrawals and certain debit transactions.

More significantly, the account was reportedly maintained as a reserve for the repayment of a Bank of Industry loan, with withdrawals or transfers to third parties requiring approvals from the account officer, regional manager and credit monitoring team.

The EFCC alleged that the three transactions were processed without these mandatory approvals.

The circumstances have therefore raised broader questions about the effectiveness of the bank’s internal supervision, transaction-monitoring mechanisms and risk-management procedures.

For a financial institution entrusted with customers’ deposits and corporate funds, the effectiveness of internal controls is central to public confidence. The allegations make it important to establish whether existing safeguards operated as designed and whether any procedural failures contributed to the transactions.

A SECOND CASE INVOLVING $510,000

The ₦515 million investigation is not the first time Nwaobi has been linked to allegations involving substantial customer funds.

He is also facing a separate criminal trial over the alleged diversion of $510,000 belonging to Lantern Gate Nigeria Limited, another Access Bank customer.

The EFCC reportedly arraigned him before the Federal High Court in Enugu in November 2025 on nine counts bordering on forgery and alleged criminal diversion.

According to the commission, the $510,000 was allegedly transferred into six different accounts without the company’s authorisation.

One of the charges accused Nwaobi of inducing the bank to process the transfers on the false representation that Lantern Gate Nigeria Limited had approved the transactions.

Nwaobi pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The court subsequently granted him bail in the sum of ₦250 million, with three sureties in like sum. The trial was scheduled for 10, 11 and 12 March 2026.

The existence of two separate cases involving substantial sums has intensified attention on the circumstances surrounding the former banker’s previous operational responsibilities.

However, the allegations remain subject to judicial determination, and his plea of not guilty means he retains the constitutional presumption of innocence.

QUESTIONS OVER BANKING SAFEGUARDS

Beyond the individual allegations, the DAHUA Paper Company case raises important questions about the responsibility of financial institutions to protect customers against unauthorised transactions.

In particular, attention is likely to focus on how the bank’s approval hierarchy operated, whether the required safeguards were bypassed and whether its internal audit and compliance systems identified the transactions promptly.

Questions also arise over the circumstances surrounding the reactivation of the company’s account without a Post No Debit restriction, given the reported purpose for which the account was established.

These issues are important because the security of customer deposits depends not only on preventing external fraud but also on ensuring that internal procedures cannot be circumvented without detection.

Access Bank’s institutional responsibility in this regard deserves scrutiny independently of the criminal investigations involving its former employee.

The bank’s position on the allegations, including any internal findings, recovery efforts and additional safeguards introduced following the incidents, would help provide a fuller picture of the matter.

The EFCC’s investigation places the spotlight on the relationship between individual accountability and institutional responsibility in Nigeria’s banking sector.

While criminal proceedings will determine the culpability or otherwise of the former operations officer, the wider questions surrounding transaction controls and customer protection remain relevant.

For corporate customers, particularly businesses maintaining specialised accounts for loan repayments and other financial obligations, confidence in a bank depends on the assurance that funds cannot be accessed or transferred without proper authorisation.

The allegations involving DAHUA Paper Company and Lantern Gate Nigeria Limited therefore provide an important basis for examining the effectiveness of banking safeguards against potential insider abuse.

Access Bank has an opportunity to clarify the circumstances surrounding the transactions and explain the measures in place to protect other customers.

Ultimately, the issue extends beyond one former employee or a particular branch. It concerns the integrity of financial controls, the protection of customers’ money and the responsibility of banks to maintain public confidence in the financial system.

As the EFCC continues its investigation, the public will expect the facts to emerge through due process, while the bank’s institutional response will remain an important part of the accountability questions raised by the allegations.