Customers Protest Alleged N100m Fraud at Jaiz Bank in Jos

Scores of angry customers of Jaiz Bank protested on Monday at the bank’s main branch in Jos, Plateau State. They claim there were fraudulent transactions worth over N100 million and want the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the federal government to step in.

The protesters said the bank has not addressed their complaints about money that was transferred without their permission. They gathered at the bank with placards, calling on the CBN, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), and the government to help them recover their money.

Some of the placards read: “CBN, come to our side, because the money was withdrawn unauthorised”; “Nigeria Bar Association, the ordinary need you here”; and “Federal Government, come to our rescue, we have been cheated.”

One of the protesters, Hashim Faruk, explained that the issue started in 2022. He said several customers lost money through transactions involving a bank staff member. Mr Faruk mentioned that the bank reported the matter to the Plateau State Police Command’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which looked into the claims.

According to him, the police found that a bank employee, Habiba Abdulrahman, was involved in defrauding the customers. He said the police recommended that the bank pay back the affected customers, but the bank has not followed through on that recommendation.

Mr Faruk explained that the customers tried many times to get the bank to resolve the issue but had no success. This led them to hold the protest.

They called on the CBN, the federal government, and the NBA to help them get their money back. The protesters also demanded an independent investigation into the transactions, a clear timeline for the recovery of their funds, and accountability for anyone found guilty.

When PREMIUM TIMES reached out to Jaiz Bank’s legal adviser, Munir Barau, he disagreed with the customers' claims. He said the money in question was not sent to customers' Jaiz Bank accounts but to the personal accounts of Ms Abdulrahman and her husband.

Mr Barau explained that the couple collected money from customers under investment deals and paid them monthly returns between N50,000 and N100,000, based on the amount invested. He said this arrangement continued until the couple allegedly stopped making the payments, leading to complaints.

He gave the example of a customer who invested N10 million with a promise of receiving N400,000 monthly, but whose payments stopped. He insisted that the bank was not part of the investment deals and there were no official documents showing that the money went into the bank's accounts.

Mr Barau also mentioned that police officers found several bank deposit slips at Ms Abdulrahman’s home during their investigation. He said both Ms Abdulrahman and her husband are facing charges of fraud and criminal conspiracy related to the transactions.

A joint venture agreement seen by PREMIUM TIMES shows details of the N10 million investment mentioned by Mr Barau. The agreement lists Abubakar Idris Zakariya and Munir Murtala Muhammad Dansarina as the parties involved.

It states that Mr Zakariya invested N10 million in August 2025. According to the document, he received N1 million, leaving N9 million outstanding. The agreement also says that the investment originally promised a monthly profit of N400,000, which was later adjusted to N360,000 after the N1 million payment.

This information matches what Mr Barau described about the N10 million investment and the promised returns. The agreement is signed by both parties and includes a clause for resolving disputes amicably before going to court.

While this agreement shows the investment arrangement, it does not name Jaiz Bank as a party. This raises questions about whether the bank or its staff were involved in facilitating the investment or if they bear any responsibility for the losses.

Another affected customer, Amina Odoko, disagreed with the bank's position. She said her dealings were directly with Jaiz Bank and not with Ms Abdulrahman. Ms Odoko insisted that the transactions happened inside the bank and were backed by official banking documents.

She argued that customers conducted their business through the bank and followed proper banking procedures, raising concerns about the bank's attempt to distance itself from the transactions.

A Jaiz Bank account statement obtained by PREMIUM TIMES shows a N4 million transfer from a children’s savings account to a beneficiary named Munir Dansarina Global Ventures. This transaction was recorded on 9 May 2025, and it involved a debit from an account belonging to Sani Ashraf Lawal Umar, a children’s savings account at the bank’s Jos branch.

The statement also shows a transfer charge of N53.75. The name of the beneficiary matches the business name in the joint venture agreement. The statement recorded two credits of N999,500 and N1 million on 7 and 8 May 2025, respectively, from First Bank, with descriptions mentioning Aisha Sani Muhammad.

Additionally, it recorded a N60,000 credit on 15 May 2025 with a transaction mentioning Habiba Abdulrahman. Other entries indicate cash deposits of N60,000 and N100,000 on 16 June 2025 and other credits in following months.

The statement confirms that the N4 million debit came from the children’s savings account and identifies Munir Dansarina Global Ventures as the beneficiary. But it does not clarify the purpose of the transfer, whether it was authorised, or if it was part of the investment arrangements mentioned by Mr Barau.

The transfer occurred in May 2025, while the joint venture agreement states that Mr Zakariya made his N10 million investment in August. The documents do not show that these transactions are linked.

Nonetheless, this transaction offers a separate trail that needs further investigation, especially since the bank claims the disputed investments were personal accounts and not linked to the bank.

Other documents reveal that Jaiz Bank is facing civil cases at the Plateau State High Court, Jos Judicial Division. One case is brought by Rose Dayu Gyang against Jaiz Bank Plc.

The writ of summons orders the bank to respond within 30 days, warning that failure to do so allows the claimant to continue and get a judgment without the bank's presence. This document has a receiving stamp from Jaiz Bank dated 13 March 2026 and a High Court processing stamp dated 10 April 2026.

Another case is led by Umar Lawal Hashim and Aisha Sani Muhammad against the bank on behalf of themselves and their three children: Ashraf Sani Umar Lawal, Hauwa Khairy Umar Lawal, and Muhammad Umar Lawal. Their court document, received by the High Court on 6 August, also instructs the bank to respond within 30 days.

These documents show that the family has taken action against Jaiz Bank, but the writs do not provide full details of their claims or show the bank’s liability. Another writ identifies Abubakar Idris Zakariya as a claimant in a case against Jaiz Bank and Mrs Habiba at the Plateau State High Court.

The writ requires the defendants to respond within 30 days, warning that the claimant can proceed and obtain judgment in their absence if they fail to act. Although the handwritten suit number is unclear, the writ offers more evidence of legal actions involving the bank and Mr Zakariya, who is also named in the joint venture agreement regarding the N10 million investment.

The agreement documents his investment with Mr Dansarina, while the writ shows that he is also taking action against Jaiz Bank and Mrs Habiba. These court documents confirm that the actions are underway but do not reveal the outcomes or determine the bank’s liability.

The protesters have called on the CBN to look into the claims and uncover the details of the disputed transactions. They want the NBA to give legal support to affected customers and have asked the federal government to step in.

This situation raises questions about the duty of banks to protect their customers from financial misconduct, especially when it involves bank employees. Jaiz Bank insists that the disputed investments were private deals between customers and its former employee.

But the affected customers argue that their transactions were done through the bank. The investment agreement, account statement, court documents, and accounts from both the bank and the affected customers show different sides of the story.

The key issues remain whether the transactions were done through the bank and how much bank staff were involved. Customers want to know who should take responsibility for their losses. The protesters said they will keep demanding the return of their money until the issue is sorted out.