Bank customers protest alleged N100m fraud in Jos, documents show N10m investment deal

Scores of aggrieved customers of Jaiz Bank on Monday protested at the bank’s main branch in Jos, Plateau State, over alleged fraudulent transactions involving more than N100 million, demanding intervention by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the federal government.

The protesters accused the financial institution of failing to resolve complaints over money they said had been transferred without their authorisation.

Gathering at the bank’s premises with placards, they called on the CBN, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the federal government to intervene and help recover their funds.

Some of the placards bore inscriptions such as: “CBN, come to our side, because the money was withdrawn unauthorised”; “Nigeria Bar Association, the ordinary need you here”; and “Federal Government, come to our rescue, we have been cheated.”

Speaking on behalf of the protesters, Hashim Faruk said the dispute dated back to 2022, when several customers allegedly lost money through transactions involving a staff member of the bank.

Mr Faruk said the bank reported the matter to the Plateau State Police Command’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which investigated the allegations.

According to him, the police investigation identified a bank employee, Habiba Abdulrahman, as the person who allegedly defrauded the customers.

He said the police subsequently recommended that the bank refund the affected customers but that the financial institution failed to comply with the recommendation.

Mr Faruk said repeated efforts by the customers to secure a resolution had proved unsuccessful, forcing them to stage the protest.

He called on the CBN, the federal government and the NBA to intervene and ensure that the affected customers recovered their money.

The protesters also demanded an independent investigation of the disputed transactions, a definite timeline for the recovery of their funds and accountability for anyone found culpable.

Bank denies responsibility

However, when PREMIUM TIMES contacted Jaiz Bank’s legal adviser, Munir Barau, who was designated by the bank’s management to speak on its behalf, he disputed the customers’ claims that the financial institution was responsible for the transactions.

Mr Barau said the money in dispute was not paid into the individuals’ Jaiz Bank’s accounts but into the personal accounts of Ms Abdulrahman and her husband domiciled in the bank.

He explained that the couple collected money from customers under investment arrangements and paid them monthly returns ranging from N50,000 to N100,000, depending on the amounts invested.

According to him, the arrangement continued until the couple allegedly stopped making payments, prompting complaints from the affected customers.

Mr Barau cited the case of a customer who allegedly invested N10 million with a promise to receive N400,000 monthly, but whose payments were subsequently discontinued.

He maintained that the bank was not a party to the investment arrangements and that there was no official documentation establishing that the money was paid into its accounts.

The legal adviser further disclosed that, during the police investigation, detectives visited Ms Abdulrahman’s residence, where they allegedly recovered several bank deposit tellers.

He said Ms Abdulrahman and her husband had been charged with fraud and criminal conspiracy in connection with the transactions.

Agreement confirms N10m investment, N360,000 monthly returns

A joint venture agreement obtained by PREMIUM TIMES provides documentary details of the N10 million investment cited by Mr Barau.

The agreement, bearing the name Munir Dansarina Global Ventures, identifies Abubakar Idris Zakariya and Munir Murtala Muhammad Dansarina as the parties to the investment arrangement.

It states that Mr Zakariya invested N10 million in a business arrangement in August 2025.

According to the document, Mr Zakariya had received N1 million, leaving an outstanding balance of N9 million.

The agreement further states that the investment initially attracted a monthly profit payment of N400,000, which was reduced to N360,000 following the payment of the N1 million.

The figures and payment arrangement correspond with the N10 million investment and promised monthly return described by Mr Barau.

The agreement, signed by both parties, also contains a dispute-resolution clause requiring them to first attempt an amicable settlement before approaching a competent court.

Although the agreement provides documentary confirmation of the investment arrangement described by the bank’s legal adviser, it identifies Mr Dansarina and Mr Zakariya as the contracting parties and does not name Jaiz Bank as a party.

It therefore establishes the investment arrangement but does not, by itself, establish whether the bank or its personnel were involved in facilitating it or whether the financial institution bears responsibility for any resulting loss.

Customer disputes bank’s account

However, another affected customer, Amina Odoko, challenged the bank’s position, insisting that her dealings were directly with Jaiz Bank and not Ms Abdulrahman.

Ms Odoko said the transactions took place inside the bank’s premises and were supported by official banking documents and transactions through a Jaiz Bank account.

She maintained that the customers dealt with the financial institution through its premises and established banking procedures, questioning the bank’s attempt to distance itself from the disputed transactions.

Her account contradicts Mr Barau’s assertion that the customers entered into private financial arrangements with the former employee and her husband.

Bank statement shows N4m transfer to investment beneficiary

A Jaiz Bank account statement obtained by PREMIUM TIMES records a N4 million transfer from a children’s savings account to a beneficiary identified in the transaction narration as Munir Dansarina Global Ventures.

The transaction, dated 9 May 2025, was recorded as a debit from an account belonging to Sani Ashraf Lawal Umar, which the statement identifies as a children’s savings account domiciled at the bank’s Jos branch.

The statement also records a transfer charge of N53.75.

The beneficiary’s name matches the business name appearing on the joint venture agreement between Mr Zakariya and Mr Dansarina.

The same statement records two credits of N999,500 and N1 million on 7 and 8 May 2025, respectively, from First Bank, with transaction descriptions referencing Aisha Sani Muhammad.

It also records a N60,000 credit on 15 May 2025 under a transaction narration referring to Habiba Abdulrahman.

Further entries show cash deposits of N60,000 and N100,000 on 16 June 2025, alongside other credits in subsequent months.

The statement establishes that the N4 million debit was recorded against the children’s savings account and identifies Munir Dansarina Global Ventures as the beneficiary.

However, the statement does not establish the purpose of the transfer, whether it was authorised or whether it formed part of the investment arrangements described by Mr Barau.

The transfer was recorded in May 2025, while the joint venture agreement states that Mr Zakariya made his N10 million investment in August of the same year. The available documents do not establish that the two transactions were connected.

Nevertheless, the transaction provides a separate documentary trail that warrants examination, particularly in light of the bank’s position that the disputed investments involved personal accounts rather than the financial institution.

Court documents show separate suits against bank

Other documents obtained by PREMIUM TIMES show that Jaiz Bank is facing separate civil proceedings at the Plateau State High Court, Jos Judicial Division.

One of the cases involves Rose Dayu Gyang, who instituted an action against Jaiz Bank Plc.

The writ of summons directs the bank to enter an appearance within 30 days of service, warning that failure to do so could allow the claimant to proceed with the case and obtain judgment in the bank’s absence.

The document bears a Jaiz Bank receiving stamp dated 13 March 2026 and a High Court processing stamp dated 10 April 2026.

In another action, Umar Lawal Hashim and Aisha Sani Muhammad instituted proceedings against the bank on behalf of themselves and their three minor children: Ashraf Sani Umar Lawal, Hauwa Khairy Umar Lawal and Muhammad Umar Lawal.

The originating court process, received at the High Court on 6 August, also directs the bank to enter an appearance within 30 days of service.

The documents show that the family instituted an action against Jaiz Bank, although the writs alone do not disclose the full particulars of their claims or establish the bank’s liability.

A further writ of summons obtained by PREMIUM TIMES identifies Abubakar Idris Zakariya as a claimant in an action against Jaiz Bank and Mrs Habiba before the Plateau State High Court, Jos Judicial Division.

The writ commands the defendants to enter an appearance within 30 days of service, warning that the claimant may proceed and obtain judgment in their absence if they fail to do so.

Although the handwritten suit number on the document is not sufficiently legible, the writ provides additional evidence of legal proceedings involving the bank and Mr Zakariya, whose name also appears in the joint venture agreement detailing the N10 million investment.

ALSO READ: Jaiz Bank’s regulatory penalties surge to N530.9 million in 2025

The agreement documents his investment arrangement with Mr Dansarina, while the writ shows that he also instituted proceedings against Jaiz Bank and Mrs Habiba.

The court documents establish that the actions were instituted but do not disclose their eventual outcomes or determine the bank’s liability.

Customers seek regulatory intervention
The protesters urged the CBN to investigate the allegations and establish the circumstances surrounding the disputed transactions.

They also appealed to the NBA to provide legal support to the affected customers and called on the federal government to intervene.

The dispute raises questions about the responsibility of financial institutions to protect customers against financial misconduct, particularly where allegations involve individuals employed by banks.

While Jaiz Bank maintains that the disputed investments were private arrangements between customers and its former employee and her husband, the affected customers insist that their transactions were conducted through the bank.

The investment agreement, account statement, court processes and accounts provided by both the bank and the affected customers present different aspects of the dispute.

However, the central issues remain whether the disputed transactions were conducted through authorised banking channels, the extent of any involvement by bank personnel and who should bear responsibility for the customers’ losses.

The protesters said they would continue to demand the recovery of their money until the dispute was resolved.