Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, on Friday reserved ruling until July 9 on the admissibility of extra-judicial statements allegedly made by former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, in his ongoing alleged $4.5 billion fraud trial. This was disclosed……
Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, on Friday reserved ruling until July 9 on the admissibility of extra-judicial statements allegedly made by former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, in his ongoing alleged $4.5 billion fraud trial.
This was disclosed in a post on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) official X page. The anti-graft agency is prosecuting Emefiele on a 19-count charge bordering on alleged gratification and corrupt demands during his tenure as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). His co-defendant, Henry Omoile, is facing a three-count charge over the alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts by an agent. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
At the resumed hearing, counsel to Emefiele, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), opposed the admissibility of the statements sought to be tendered by the prosecution, arguing that they were not made voluntarily. He told the court that the statements were obtained through oppression as well as physical and mental torture while his client was allegedly held in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) for more than 157 days.
Relying on the provisions of the Anti-Torture Act, 2017, and the Evidence Act, Ojo argued that the statements were involuntary and therefore inadmissible.
“The issue before this Honourable Court is whether the statements credited to the first defendant were made voluntarily,” he argued.
According to him, where the voluntariness of a statement is challenged, a video recording of the interrogation remains the most reliable means of establishing compliance with due process. He further contended that the absence of such recording rendered the statements unreliable.
Ojo also submitted that the prosecution failed to produce independent evidence to support the alleged confessional statements and questioned the role of the lawyer said to have witnessed the interviews. He urged the court to reject the statements, maintaining that any doubt regarding their voluntariness ought to be resolved in favour of the defendant.
In response, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), who appeared alongside Bilikisu Buhari and C.C. Okezie, called the prosecution’s eighth witness, EFCC investigator Alvan Gurumnaan.
Led in evidence, the witness told the court that Emefiele honoured the EFCC’s invitation for questioning and that all interviews were conducted in the presence of his legal representative.
The witness further informed the court that although the prosecution had voluntarily withdrawn the statement dated October 26, 2023, it was seeking to tender statements made on October 27, October 30, November 1 and November 2, 2023.
“If the defence does not want that statement, we are prepared to withdraw it. We are withdrawing it not because it was obtained through torture or oppression,” the witness said.
Oyedepo subsequently argued that there was no basis for conducting a trial-within-trial, maintaining that none of the remaining statements constituted a confession.
“There is nothing in the defendant’s statements that can be construed as an admission of the facts in issue,” he submitted.
He further argued that the Anti-Torture Act does not make a trial-within-trial mandatory in the circumstances and urged the court to dismiss the defence’s objection and allow the substantive trial to proceed expeditiously.
Read Also: Court Admits Emefiele To Bail, Ask For Two Sureties
Earlier in the proceedings, counsel to the second defendant, Adeyinka Kotoye (SAN), informed the court of a pending application seeking leave to appeal an earlier ruling of the court. The prosecution did not oppose the application, following which Justice Oshodi granted the request.
“I hereby grant the second defendant leave to appeal the ruling of the court,” the judge held.
Justice Oshodi thereafter adjourned the matter until July 9, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of the extra-judicial statements. The court also fixed October 6, 7 and 8, as well as November 11, 12 and 13, 2026, for the continuation of the substantive trial.
