FLASH POINT

By Fatima Dayyab

Fresh controversy has emerged around the management of Union Bank of Nigeria, with allegations of excessive executive spending and lavish bonuses casting a shadow over the Central Bank of Nigeria’s (CBN) intervention in the financial institution.

The development comes months after the CBN justified the dissolution of the bank’s former board on grounds of financial mismanagement, governance failures and regulatory breaches. At the time, regulators argued that decisive action was necessary to protect depositors and preserve the stability of one of Nigeria’s oldest financial institutions.

However, recent revelations have shifted attention toward the CBN-appointed management team, with critics questioning whether the intervention has delivered the accountability and financial discipline promised by regulators.

At the centre of the controversy is the Managing Director appointed following the CBN intervention. Documents reportedly obtained from public records in the United States and the United Kingdom indicate that properties worth more than N3 billion were acquired abroad during 2025.

According to the documents, a five-bedroom mansion valued at approximately $1.3 million was purchased in the State of Maryland, United States. The property was reportedly acquired in the Managing Director’s name.

In the United Kingdom, records allegedly obtained from Companies House show that a luxury flat valued at approximately $1 million was acquired through a company known as Zinoni Ltd. The company was reportedly incorporated in June 2025 by Adelana Oni, said to be the Managing Director’s 29-year-old son. The property purchase reportedly occurred during the same period.

The reported acquisitions have triggered concerns among shareholders and industry observers who question how such investments could be financed at a time when Union Bank was publicly described by regulators as financially distressed.

Critics argue that the revelations raise fundamental questions regarding executive compensation, governance oversight and accountability within the institution.

“The key question is whether such levels of bonuses and allowances can be justified in a bank that regulators themselves described as requiring urgent intervention,” a shareholder advocate familiar with the matter said.

Sources familiar with the situation claim that concerns over executive remuneration and board expenditure prompted scrutiny from anti-corruption authorities.

Investigations reportedly commenced in December 2025 when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) began reviewing spending patterns, executive allowances and compensation packages approved under the current management structure.

According to individuals familiar with the probe, the Managing Director acknowledged ownership of the overseas properties and reportedly stated that they were financed through legitimate earnings and bonus payments received during her tenure.

The situation has intensified debate among shareholders who argue that access to information regarding executive compensation and management spending has been limited despite the bank’s ongoing regulatory supervision.

Industry analysts note that the controversy presents a significant challenge for the CBN, which had defended its intervention as necessary to restore confidence, improve governance standards and safeguard the interests of depositors.

“The regulator must now demonstrate that the standards applied to the previous board are equally applicable to the current management,” one banking governance expert said.

Meanwhile, sources indicate that the EFCC’s inquiries have prompted additional regulatory scrutiny. A permanent examiner has reportedly been deployed to review board expenditures, executive benefits and governance practices within the bank.

Neither the EFCC nor the CBN has publicly released detailed findings regarding the reported investigations. However, persons familiar with the matter maintain that inquiries remain ongoing.

The controversy comes against the backdrop of continuing legal disputes surrounding the CBN’s takeover of Union Bank’s former leadership.

While the regulator has consistently maintained that intervention was necessary to protect depositors and ensure financial stability, critics argue that transparency and accountability must extend to all parties involved in the bank’s management, regardless of when they assumed office.

For shareholders, the unfolding developments have become a test of whether governance reforms introduced after the intervention are achieving their intended objectives.

As investigations continue, stakeholders say the public deserves clear answers regarding executive compensation, overseas asset acquisitions and the financial management of a bank whose future remains closely tied to regulatory support.

With millions of depositors and thousands of employees relying on the institution, the outcome of ongoing inquiries could have significant implications not only for Union Bank but also for broader confidence in Nigeria’s banking governance