Naira Notes Chaos: Reps Demand CBN End Confusion Over Old And New Notes

Naira Notes Chaos: Reps Demand CBN End Confusion Over Old And New Notes

Labour Party Caucus Leader in the House of Representatives, Afam Ogene, has criticized the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) for its lack of clear communication on the use of both old and new Naira notes…… CONTINUE READING

His statement, released in Abuja on Friday, follows a recent clarification from the CBN after the Supreme Court adjusted its prior ruling. The CBN clarified that the court’s latest decision does not specify when the old N200, N500, and N1000 notes would stop being legal tender.

On October 24, the House of Representatives passed a motion introduced by Ogene, calling on the CBN to address the overlapping circulation of the old and new currency notes. Titled “Need for Central Bank of Nigeria to Sensitize Nigerians about the Non-Legal Status of Old Naira Notes from January 1, 2025,” the motion aimed to eliminate confusion regarding the validity of both sets of notes.

Ogene admitted there was an “unintended factual error” in the motion, attributing it to the CBN’s unclear policy direction. He highlighted that the House’s action was meant to bring clarity and assigned its Committee on Banking Regulations to engage with the CBN, with a report due within 21 days.

In response, the CBN called the House’s motion an attempt to “disrupt the country’s payment system,” advising the public to ignore it and referring to the Supreme Court’s recent decision. Ogene questioned the logic of maintaining two versions of the Naira, asking, “Which country operates its economy with two different sets of currency notes?”

The lawmaker pointed out that the CBN’s goal in issuing new notes was likely to phase out the old ones over time. He also expressed concern over the deteriorating quality of notes dispensed by banks, stating that people lose between N5,000 and N10,000 for every N100,000 withdrawn due to damaged notes.

Ogene concluded by urging the CBN to prioritize its responsibility to the public instead of hiding behind “legal ambiguities.”