Managing Director/Chief Executive, Fine and Country West Africa, Mrs. Udokanma Okonjo, has petitioned the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) over claims she owed Providus Bank unpaid overdraft amounting to $97,000.
The petition, dated October 8, 2025, was addressed to the Director, Consumer Protection Department of the apex bank, urging the central bank to direct Providus Bank to immediately reverse the unlawful transactions and refund all wrongfully deducted sums to my accounts as well as impose appropriate regulatory sanctions on the bank.
She described the allegation as false, unsubstantiated, and a gross violation of due process, adding that an appeal had been instituted following a Federal High Court, Lagos judgement against her.
Reacting to the petition, counsel to Okonjo, Sunny Omoragbon, said the case is currently on appeal, following the bank’s unilateral re-classification of a debit-card account as a credit facility, without consent, agreement, or documentation.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
According to the legal counsel, “Mrs. Okonjo never requested, negotiated, or signed for any overdraft facility. The so-called debt is a construct of arbitrary charges imposed without contractual authority or transparency.”
He further revealed that more than 70 per cent of the disputed amount comprises unapproved interest and charges, and that a Motion for Stay of Execution had already been filed pending hearing on October 28, 2025.
Beyond the financial dispute, Omoragbon condemned the pattern of harassment and unprofessional communication from bank officials, citing multiple threatening WhatsApp messages from a Providus Bank staff member, Mr. Olayinka Lawuyi, of the bank’s Risk Management department.
According to him, one such messages, dated July 4, 2024, read:
“Do you want your indebtedness on social media? If I do not see your payment within the next week, we shall commence full recovery, which you might find embarrassing.”
Omoragbon described the threat as “a blatant act of intimidation and reputational bullying,” in clear violation of CBN’s consumer protection guidelines and basic standards of professional banking communication.
He said Okonjo’s only action prior to the threats was a formal written request for clarification, dated March 18, 2024, asking the bank to provide documentation, transaction history, and contract evidence for a debt she did not recognise.
He said, “A customer has the right to seek clarification. To weaponise such a request with threats of public embarrassment is unethical and unacceptable in any financial system.”
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Omoragbon also noted correspondence from the same bank official admitting that “you do not have a corresponding amount in your account”.
He added that at other times, the account officer suggested that funds were paid into Mrs Okonjo’s account by Walter Akpani, the Managing Director, or other bank staff, a practice he described as irregular and confusing.
The legal counsel stressed that the defense will pursue redress not only through the courts but also through petitions to the apex bank’s Consumer Protection Council, and other regulatory bodies, urging a thorough review of the bank’s handling of customer accounts and communications.
Omoragbon said, “This case is no longer just about one client. It raises fundamental questions about transparency, consent, and accountability in Nigeria’s banking sector. No customer should be subjected to intimidation or unconsented financial exposure.”
However, industry observers believe the appeal could set an important precedent on contractual consent, consumer rights, and the limits of banks’ discretionary powers in managing client accounts.
Essentially, the dispute stemmed from a Providus Bank claim that Okonjo operated and failed to repay an overdraft facility.
The Federal High Court, Lagos, ruled in favour of the bank but reduced the interest rate to 10 per cent.
However, Okonjo, through her counsel, has appealed, asserting that no such facility existed and that the judgment was based on incomplete or misleading information.
