Scores of aggrieved customers of Jaiz Bank Plc have staged a protest at the bank’s main branch in Jos, Plateau State, demanding the recovery of approximately ₦104 million allegedly lost through disputed financial transactions.
The protesters, who gathered at the bank’s premises on Monday, November 2, 2026, accused the financial institution of failing to address complaints over funds they claimed were transferred or withdrawn without their authorisation.
They called on the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the Federal Government to intervene, investigate the allegations and ensure that affected customers recover their money.
The protesters alleged that some of the disputed transactions involved a former Jaiz Bank employee, Habiba Abdulrahman, and insisted that the bank should be held accountable for transactions they believed were conducted through legitimate banking channels.
However, Jaiz Bank has rejected responsibility for the alleged losses, maintaining that the customers entered into private investment arrangements with Abdulrahman and her husband rather than official investment transactions authorised by the bank.
The disagreement has resulted in criminal proceedings against the individuals allegedly involved, alongside separate civil lawsuits instituted against the bank at the Plateau State High Court, Jos Judicial Division.Court Case Summaries
During the protest, the affected customers displayed placards calling for regulatory intervention and the recovery of their funds. Some appealed directly to the CBN to investigate the alleged unauthorised transactions, while others urged the Federal Government and NBA to assist them.
One of the placards read: “Federal Government, come to our rescue, we have been cheated.”
Speaking on behalf of the protesters, Hashim Faruk said the dispute began in 2022 when several customers allegedly lost money through transactions involving a female employee of Jaiz Bank.
Faruk explained that the affected customers believed their money had been deposited or invested through the bank’s services but later discovered that they could no longer access their funds.
He said the matter was subsequently reported to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the Plateau State Police Command, which commenced an investigation.
According to him, the investigation identified Habiba Abdulrahman, a bank employee at the time, as the individual allegedly responsible for the disputed transactions.
Faruk further claimed that the police recommended that Jaiz Bank refund the affected customers after investigating the complaints. However, he alleged that the bank failed to comply with the recommendation.
He said repeated attempts to resolve the matter through discussions with the bank’s management had produced no satisfactory outcome, forcing the customers to take their grievances to the streets.
The protesters maintained that the unresolved dispute had caused them significant financial hardship and called for an independent investigation, a clear recovery timeline and accountability for anyone found responsible.
Faruk urged the CBN to examine the circumstances surrounding the disputed transactions and determine whether the financial activities complied with applicable banking regulations.
He also appealed to the NBA to provide legal assistance to affected customers, particularly those unable to pursue legal action independently.Nigerian Law updates
The protesters further called on the Federal Government to intervene, expressing concern that ordinary banking customers might find it difficult to obtain justice in disputes involving financial institutions.
Responding to the allegations, Jaiz Bank’s legal adviser, Munir Barau, who was designated by the bank’s management to address the matter, denied that the institution was responsible for the customers’ losses.
Barau maintained that the disputed funds were not deposited into the customers’ individual Jaiz Bank accounts, as alleged by the protesters.
Instead, he claimed that the money was paid into personal accounts belonging to Abdulrahman and her husband, which were maintained at the bank.
According to the lawyer, the couple allegedly collected money from individuals through private investment arrangements that promised periodic financial returns.Find Nigerian lawyers
He explained that the investors initially received monthly payments, with the amount varying according to the money invested.
Barau claimed that some customers received between ₦50,000 and ₦100,000 monthly before the payments eventually stopped.
He cited the case of an individual who allegedly invested ₦10 million under an arrangement promising a monthly return of ₦400,000.
According to him, the arrangement continued for some time before the investor stopped receiving the expected payments.
The lawyer insisted that Jaiz Bank was not a party to the investment agreements and argued that the use of personal accounts domiciled at the institution did not automatically make the bank liable for private financial dealings conducted through them.
He further maintained that no official documentation had been presented to establish that the disputed investments were paid into accounts belonging to the financial institution itself.
Barau also disclosed that detectives investigating the allegations visited Abdulrahman’s residence and allegedly recovered several bank deposit tellers.
He said Abdulrahman and her husband had subsequently been charged with fraud and criminal conspiracy in connection with the transactions.
The allegations against the couple remain subject to the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
Further details about one of the disputed transactions emerged from a joint venture agreement obtained in connection with the controversy.
The document, bearing the name Munir Dansarina Global Ventures, identifies Abubakar Idris Zakariya and Munir Murtala Muhammad Dansarina as parties to a private investment arrangement.
According to the agreement, Zakariya invested ₦10 million in August 2025 under an arrangement that provided for monthly profit payments.
The document indicates that Zakariya had received ₦1 million, leaving an outstanding balance of ₦9 million.
It further states that the investment initially attracted a monthly return of ₦400,000, which was later reduced to ₦360,000 following the payment of the ₦1 million.
These financial terms correspond with the investment arrangement described by Barau when explaining the disputed transactions.
The agreement also contains a dispute-resolution clause requiring the parties to attempt an amicable settlement before approaching a court of competent jurisdiction.
However, Jaiz Bank is not identified as a party to the agreement, which names Zakariya and Dansarina as the contracting parties.
Although the document provides evidence of a private investment arrangement, it does not independently establish whether bank personnel facilitated the transaction in an official capacity or whether the financial institution bears legal responsibility for the alleged losses.
Despite Jaiz Bank’s position, some affected customers have disputed the bank’s explanation, insisting that their dealings took place within the institution’s premises and through procedures they believed were legitimate banking operations.
One of the complainants, Amina Odoko, maintained that she dealt directly with Jaiz Bank rather than entering into a private investment arrangement with Abdulrahman.
She claimed that the transactions took place within the bank’s premises and were supported by documents and payments processed through an account domiciled at the institution.
Odoko questioned why the bank was distancing itself from the disputed transactions when, according to her, customers dealt with individuals operating within the banking environment.
She insisted that the circumstances surrounding the transactions required a comprehensive investigation into the involvement of the bank and its employees.
Her position contradicts Barau’s explanation that the customers knowingly entered into private investment arrangements with Abdulrahman and her husband.
Additional questions have also emerged from a Jaiz Bank account statement showing a ₦4 million transfer from a children’s savings account to a beneficiary identified as Munir Dansarina Global Ventures.
The transaction, dated May 9, 2025, was recorded as a debit from an account belonging to Sani Ashraf Lawal Umar, described in the statement as a children’s savings account maintained at the bank’s Jos branch.
The transaction also attracted a transfer charge of ₦53.75.
The beneficiary’s name corresponds with the business name appearing on the joint venture agreement involving Zakariya and Dansarina.
Other entries in the account statement include credits of ₦999,500 and ₦1 million received from First Bank on May 7 and May 8, 2025, respectively. The transaction descriptions refer to Aisha Sani Muhammad.
Another credit of ₦60,000 was recorded on May 15, 2025, under a transaction narration referring to Habiba Abdulrahman.
The statement further shows cash deposits of ₦60,000 and ₦100,000 on June 16, 2025, alongside other credits recorded in subsequent months.
While the statement confirms that ₦4 million was debited from the children’s savings account in favour of Munir Dansarina Global Ventures, the available documentation does not establish whether the transaction was authorised, its precise purpose or whether it formed part of the investment arrangements described by the bank’s legal adviser.
The May 2025 transaction also predates the August 2025 joint venture agreement involving Zakariya and Dansarina. Therefore, the available documents do not establish that both transactions were connected.
Nevertheless, the account records provide additional documentary evidence that may assist investigators in tracing the movement of funds and determining whether bank personnel were involved.
The dispute has also resulted in several civil proceedings against Jaiz Bank at the Plateau State High Court, Jos Judicial Division.
One of the cases was instituted by Rose Dayu Gyang against Jaiz Bank Plc.
The writ of summons directs the bank to enter an appearance within 30 days of receiving the court process. It also warns that failure to respond could allow the claimant to proceed with the case in the bank’s absence.Find Legal Help
The document carries a Jaiz Bank receiving stamp dated March 13, 2026, and a High Court processing stamp dated April 10, 2026.
In another case, Umar Lawal Hashim and Aisha Sani Muhammad instituted proceedings against Jaiz 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 August 6, also directs the financial institution to enter an appearance within 30 days of service.
The case confirms that the family has taken the dispute before the court, although the available writ does not provide the complete particulars of the claims or establish liability against the bank.
A separate writ of summons also identifies Abubakar Idris Zakariya as a claimant in proceedings instituted against Jaiz Bank and Habiba Abdulrahman.
The court process directs the defendants to enter an appearance within 30 days and warns that proceedings could continue in their absence if they fail to respond.
Although the handwritten suit number on the document is not sufficiently legible, the originating process establishes that legal proceedings involving Zakariya and the defendants have been instituted.
Zakariya’s name also appears in the joint venture agreement detailing the ₦10 million investment arrangement with Munir Murtala Muhammad Dansarina.
The agreement and court documents therefore connect him to the private investment arrangement and separate litigation involving Jaiz Bank and Abdulrahman.
However, the available court records do not establish that the claims against Jaiz Bank have been determined or that the financial institution has been found legally responsible for the alleged losses.
Similarly, the existence of civil proceedings does not, by itself, establish criminal wrongdoing by the bank or the individuals named in the cases.
The controversy has raised important legal questions about the circumstances under which a financial institution may be held responsible for transactions involving its employees, particularly when customers maintain that they conducted business through the bank’s premises, documentation and established procedures.
Among the issues requiring judicial and regulatory examination are whether the disputed payments were processed through authorised banking channels, whether any employee acted within the scope of official duties and whether the bank had any legal obligation to prevent or detect the alleged misconduct.
Another central question is whether the affected customers knowingly entered into private investment arrangements, as Jaiz Bank maintains.
While the customers insist that they conducted legitimate banking transactions and deserve reimbursement, the bank argues that the investments were private arrangements involving its former employee and her husband.
The joint venture agreement, account statement and originating court processes provide different pieces of information about the transactions but do not conclusively determine who should bear responsibility for the alleged financial losses.Find Legal Help
Consequently, the affected customers have renewed their demand for the CBN to conduct an independent investigation into the movement of funds and the bank’s handling of their complaints.
They have also appealed to the NBA to assist customers seeking legal remedies and urged the Federal Government to ensure that the matter receives appropriate attention.
With civil lawsuits already instituted and criminal allegations pending against the individuals identified by the bank’s legal adviser, the dispute remains unresolved.
The protesters insist that they will continue demanding the recovery of their money until the transactions are fully investigated, responsibility is established and an appropriate resolution is reached.