NDIC and Farouk: The Importance of Upholding Agreements

The recent developments involving the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) are notably troubling. If not managed judiciously, the repercussions could undermine the trust that depositors have in Nigerian banking institutions.

This situation could, by extension, lead to doubts about the integrity, commitment, and professional capability of the Corporation in fulfilling its statutory obligations, particularly in dealing with banks that have entered liquidation.

For clarity, the NDIC was established as a statutory entity aimed at fostering continued confidence among depositors in the event of financial institution failures, particularly concerning commercial banks.

This implies that when a bank fails, the NDIC, supported by legal frameworks, assumes responsibility for managing both the assets and liabilities of the institution for the benefit of its customers and stakeholders.

In its essential role, the NDIC is expected to instill or bolster assurance among banking customers, being the foremost protector of Nigerian banks—acting as the last bastion when all else collapses.

The message it must convey consistently is one of encouragement: engage with Nigerian banks without fear; even in the event of a collapse, your funds and businesses will remain secure.

Regrettably, the NDIC is currently facing scrutiny following Heritage Bank's collapse in 2024. It is now tasked with establishing where its allegiance lies—whether it is with the bank’s clients and stakeholders that it is mandated to protect or with a select few powerful figures in governmental circles.

In the case involving Farouk Bello Bunza and the defunct Heritage Bank, the NDIC has seemingly transformed into an oppressive force, appearing poised to enforce dubious institutional authorities that do not align with any legal backing for its actions.

On December 17, 2025, the CEO of NDIC, Thompson Oludare Sunday, held a press briefing intended to clarify the controversies surrounding Heritage Bank’s pre-liquidation asset sale to Farouk.

This press conference occurred just a day after a fact-based article emerged, raising questions about the circumstances that might suggest the Corporation was being pressured to act against Farouk.

Ultimately, however, it was uncertain whether the NDIC CEO adequately clarified the contentious points, as he seemed to be more concerned with fitting the narrative to a particular agenda.

The nature of the press conference echoed a statement made by comedian Stephen Colbert in 2016 about political deception: “You know what the facts are, but you go with what feels more truthful to you.”

It ended up being verbose in language but lacking in substance, thus leaving many pondering about who is truly orchestrating the actions that the NDIC appears to be adhering to.

Those who have access to some correspondence between the NDIC and Farouk regarding the property acquisition can readily identify significant discrepancies in the narratives presented by the NDIC’s CEO to the media.

Public interest in this situation stems from the perception of clear wrongdoing, or ethical decline, being prominently displayed within NDIC, which is presumed to be business as usual.

As the late Martin Luther King Jr. famously noted, a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Today, the focus is on Farouk; tomorrow, it could be any one of us.

In summary, Farouk entered into an agreement to purchase property from Heritage Bank prior to its liquidation. Shortly thereafter, Heritage Bank's license was revoked, prompting the NDIC to take control of the now-defunct bank’s assets and liabilities as mandated.

Farouk subsequently communicated with the NDIC regarding the property, to which the Corporation acknowledged awareness of the pre-liquidation agreement but indicated that a new appraisal had drastically increased the property value from N4.5 billion to over N14 billion.

Farouk contested this new valuation, questioning the ethicality of the price hike, particularly after NDIC had previously noted in writing that he had fulfilled his obligations under the agreement.

Eventually, it seemed the NDIC adjusted its stance, influenced by various factors, including a decline in the property’s market value due to some portions being forcibly seized by the Lagos State Government.

Mr. Sunday confirmed this adjustment, stating, “Subsequently, the Corporation learned of construction and land reclamation being conducted by the Lagos State Government on adjacent properties. This led to the loss of the beachfront view once associated with the subject property, significantly impacting its market value.

“This development has direct consequences for properties that have been affected by land reclamation, such as the subject property, which has been reassessed at a reduced value because of the loss of its beachfront view due to surrounding reclamation activities.”

Following this realization, Farouk was given specific conditions to meet. The NDIC assured him it would hand over the title documents through his bank upon fulfillment of these new stipulations, despite them not being part of the original agreement.

Initially, Farouk expressed hesitation. Who wouldn’t? Ultimately, he complied and made the additional payment promptly, even signing a Deed of Undertaking imposed by the Corporation just before the deadline lapsed.

Then, unexpectedly, the Corporation retracted its documented assurance to Coronation Merchant Bank, which had financed the deal, claiming Farouk did not respond satisfactorily to their demands.

The most peculiar aspect of this situation arose when the NDIC urged Coronation Merchant Bank to disregard its earlier commitment to honor the rules by releasing the title document related to the property.

Mr. Sunday informed the press that the property was “offered on an ‘as-is’ basis due to legal disputes and the custody of the title document, which was purportedly held by a former director of the now-defunct bank.”

A crucial question arises here: If the title documents were not with the NDIC, why did the Corporation initially vow to release them to Coronation Merchant Bank once full payment was received for the property?

For clarity, part of the commitment letter dated November 11, 2025, states: “We write to confirm that upon receipt of the outstanding amount of N2,148,888,888.91 in cleared funds, we will proceed to release the title documents related to the subject property.”

This letter was from the NDIC to Coronation Merchant Bank, the financier for Farouk’s transaction.

Hence, it is perceived that the NDIC’s press conference was more about distorting the truth than clarifying it. Why would the Corporation commit to providing Farouk with documents it did not have?

Furthermore, when pressed by inquisitive reporters, the CEO stated that the title documents had not been released because Farouk did not comply with the Corporation’s requirements—though these were not originally part of the signed agreement.

Here’s what the CEO said: “Following Senator Bunza's (sic) refusal to accept the revised offer, the Corporation informed him via letter dated November 19, 2025, of its inability to comply with his request, or release the original title documents or any related documents as a condition for providing the financing facility.”

An immediate question arises: Did NDIC withhold the title documents as promised because they are not in their possession or because Farouk declined to meet the newly imposed and arbitrary conditions?

Which narrative should the public trust: that the title documents are missing from NDIC’s custody, implying that NDIC misled Coronation Merchant Bank, or that NDIC refused to release the documents because Farouk did not fulfill the imposed conditions?

According to The Sun newspaper, the CEO stated: “...the title document was not included among the assets taken over by NDIC.

“Our examiners only document what they physically encounter when we take control of a failed bank. We cannot disclose a title document that we do not possess.”

This revelation regarding the title documents' location also prompts the question: Why has NDIC failed to openly communicate this position in its dealings with Farouk since 2024 and with Coronation Merchant Bank in 2025?

First, NDIC demanded full settlement within a specified timeframe. Secondly, it assured the release of the title documents upon completion of payment, only to later deny possession of these elusive documents after Farouk had met his obligations.

During the press conference, the NDIC strategically opted to exclude the fact that Farouk, via the merchant bank, actually settled the full payment in a single day instead of adhering to the original payment timeline set by the Corporation.

Based on media coverage, it can be reasonably inferred that the press briefing was merely a deceptive act by an entity that would have benefited from maintaining silence regarding the matter, allowing it to appear blameless.

Nonetheless, Mr. Sunday’s responses to the concerns raised in previous analyses not only muddled the discourse around the issue but also revealed an unguarded eagerness to manipulate facts to achieve a specific objective.

The NDIC leader claimed during the press briefing that the Corporation was not being coerced by outside forces into ignoring the signed agreement or misrepresenting facts on an issue that is straightforward.

This is quite hard to accept, given that his previous statements during the same press conference contradicted the documented truths about the matter.

The Guardian newspaper reported with alarming headlines: “NDIC asserts that the sale of Ikoyi property to Senator Bunza is nullified.”

Nullified? On what basis? The coverage indicated that NDIC claimed “there is no binding sales agreement between it and Senator Farouk Bello Bunza,” stating that “the transaction was automatically voided when he refused to accept the revised terms.”

To avoid excessive complexity, it is true that Farouk did not possess a binding sales agreement with the NDIC. His original binding agreement lay with the defunct Heritage Bank, whose assets and liabilities—including the agreement—were inherited by NDIC. So, what’s the issue?

The CEO was further quoted acknowledging receipt of a request from Coronation Merchant Bank for a commitment to facilitate financing for Farouk, yet NDIC declined, citing his refusal to accept the revised terms.

This cannot be accurate. The letter cited earlier, entitled: “Re: Confirmation of Outstanding Obligation and Undertaking to Release Title Documents—Zone J, Plot 55, Federal Government Layout, Banana Island, Ikoyi, Lagos State” contradicts that narrative.

It appeared that after the financial institution had received the due amount on November 20, NDIC replied the following day, retracting its prior commitment to release the title documents to the bank.

Here are two paragraphs from the letter dated November 21, 2025: “Please be advised that the Corporation cannot grant your request for a commitment to release the original title documents or any related property documents pertaining to said property as a requirement for facilitating financing for Senator Bunza.

“This correspondence formally withdraws our previous letter on this matter dated November 14, 2025 (Appendix 1). Consequently, you are advised to disregard its contents, as they do not reflect the Corporation’s current stance on the issue.”

This citation confirms that the Corporation had initially accepted to issue the title documents related to the property, only to change its mind hours after Farouk’s payment was made! Why was this?

A report from The Sun had the NDIC leader stating: “This matter does not involve the title (documents related to the property). We have previously sold properties without title. The true issue here is the outstanding sum.

“No one stopped him from making payment. Had the stipulations been fulfilled and the payment completed, this matter would not have arisen.”

Is that so? Was the payment not executed? What about the evidence that Coronation Merchant Bank indeed paid for the property on Farouk’s behalf, only for conflicts to arise when the demand for the title document came about?

There’s no doubt that had the NDIC operated within its legal parameters concerning this issue—absent external pressures—Farouk’s situation would have been resolved much earlier.

The NDIC appears to be quite adept at revising narratives to validate its actions and omissions, aimed at pressuring Farouk out of the deal. So far, these tactics do not seem to yield results.

What we’ve seen from the Corporation thus far are examples of stories disconnected from realities—more self-contradictory accounts or deceptive posturing that would not hold up under legal examination.

As a sensitive entity, the NDIC must recognize that a democratic society like Nigeria can only thrive when its citizens retain trust in such institutions.

Ultimately, any misguided attempts to unilaterally annul the sale agreement that the NDIC inherited from the defunct Heritage Bank would be a severe misstep in managing this situation.

It should not even be considered, as there is no justification for it. Such a move would result in an unnecessary erosion of reputation, reinforcing the principle that an agreement is an agreement.