Associates, was confirmed by Barclays Bank to be counterfeit.

Barclays Bank had also indicated that Gazeaft Limited, the issuer of the bill of exchange, did not have an account with them and was not listed as a registered company in the UK.

Despite these findings, Petro Union and its agents persisted in their claims that Union Bank had received £2,556,000,000.00 on their behalf and had transferred £2,159,221,318.54 to the CBN while retaining £396,778,681.46. This led to court actions against the CBN and Union Bank based on these dubious claims.

In a concerning development, Petro Union managed to secure a judgment by presenting an alleged statement of account from the CBN, neglecting the fact that a Central Bank serves as a banker to the government and banks, not to individual companies or persons.

Following these proceedings, both the CBN and Union Bank filed appeals to overturn the judgment, particularly as evidence of fraudulent motives began to emerge during the ongoing criminal prosecution of Petro Union and its executives at the Federal High Court in Lagos.

Additionally, information already presented to the Supreme Court suggests that Petro Union may have obtained the judgments at lower courts by allegedly providing evidence that appears to be based on falsehoods, forgery, misrepresentation of facts, and concealment.

Given Nigeria’s increasing debt profile, many observers are alarmed by the prospect of this additional £15 billion ‘debt’ looming over the nation. They are looking to the Supreme Court to deliver justice in this complex matter.