Court Summons CBN, NDIC Over Revocation Of Banks' Licences.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has summoned the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) to appear and explain why they should not be stopped from taking further actions regarding the recent revocation of the licences of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc.

Justice Emeka Nwite issued the directive in a ruling delivered yesterday on an ex parte motion filed by the two mortgage institutions. The motion was moved by their counsel, Joseph Silas.

The judge declined the applicants’ request for an order restraining the respondents, but directed that the CBN and the NDIC must be placed on notice.

He said: “I have listened to the submission of the counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants and I have gone through the affidavit evidence, the exhibit, including the written address.

“I am of the opinion, and I so hold, that the interest of justice will be met by putting the defendants on notice.

“I hereby ordered that the defendant be put on notice to come and show cause why the reliefs sought should not be granted.”

Justice Nwite adjourned the matter till January 5, next year, for the CBN and the NDIC to show cause.

The plaintiffs — Aso Savings, Union Homes, Ridhwan Hamza and Ismaila Adamu — had sought two reliefs in the ex parte application.

• An order restraining the defendants/respondents from taking further steps on the purported revocation of the operational licence of the first and second plaintiffs (Aso Savings and Union Homes), pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

• An order barring the defendants/respondents from enforcing their unlawful decision in any way, form or manner, against the first and second plaintiffs/applicants, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

While moving the motion, Silas argued that the CBN failed to comply with the condition precedent required before exercising its power to revoke the operating licence of both mortgage institutions.

The lawyer stated that the NDIC, without allowing the two institutions to fully exhaust their rights of action, proceeded to truncate those rights by attempting to take them over.

He added that if the CBN and the NDIC were not restrained, they would impose their unlawful decisions on the plaintiffs/applicants in a manner that could not be reversed.

In a supporting affidavit, Hamza, who is identified as a shareholder in Aso Savings, acknowledged that the institutions had operational difficulties, which the CBN was aware of.

Hamza stated that the CBN, instead of intervening to address the challenges faced by the plaintiffs, issued Aso Savings an ultimatum to meet its minimum capital requirement by ensuring that all share reconstruction activities were completed in a way that fully resolved the capital shortfall, not later than August 31, 2025.

He said: “I know that notwithstanding the positive updates made to the first defendant/respondent (CBN) by the plaintiffs/applicants on December 16, 2025, in a press release, titled: ‘Revocation of the Operational Licences of Aso Savings and Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc.

“The first defendant/respondent, relying on Section 12 of BOFIA 2020 and Section 7.3 of its Revised Guidelines for Mortgage Banks, revoked the licenses of the plaintiffs/applicants.

“I know that the first defendant/respondent grounded its decision on:

• Failure to meet the minimum paid-up share capital requirement for the category of the bank licence granted to the plaintiffs/applicants

• Having insufficient assets to meet its liabilities; being critically undercapitalised with a capital adequacy ratio below the prudential minimum ratio as prescribed by the 1st defendant/respondent; and

• Failure to comply with several directives and obligations imposed upon the plaintiffs/applicants by the 1st defendant/respondent.

Hamza further stated that the CBN was aware of all the measures and progress made by Aso Savings to raise its minimum capital requirement, which he described as absolutely successful.

The lawyer added that the CBN did not act in the public interest when it issued the press release revoking the operational licences of the two financial institutions, without adhering to the provisions of Section 34(4) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, 2020.

He said the action of the CBN was arbitrary, hasty, unreasonable, and contrary to national objectives such as economic development, job creation, and investment growth.

Hamza also stated that the NDIC had begun contacting Aso Savings’ customers, “asking them to fill out an online claims form against the plaintiffs/applicants, even as the law allows the plaintiffs/applicants a window of 30 days to challenge the actions of the first defendant/respondent”.

He added: “I know that the steps taken by the second defendant/respondent is aimed at extinguishing the right of the plaintiffs/applicants to challenge the actions of the 1st defendant/respondent by immediately commencing the liquidation process.

“I know that the plaintiffs/applicants have constitutional rights to be heard fairly and to challenge the actions of the defendants/respondents.”