Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, has challenged the admissibility of statements the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) sought to tender against him in his ongoing trial over alleged $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion fraud and abuse of office.
Appearing before Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court on Friday, Emefiele’s lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued that the statements were obtained under oppressive, dehumanising, and torturous conditions while his client was in EFCC custody.
Ojo told the court that Emefiele was held incommunicado for more than 157 days before making the statements, contending that they were not voluntarily made. He cited provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act, stressing that statements obtained through torture or inhumane treatment are inadmissible.
According to the defence, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that any statement sought to be admitted in evidence was made voluntarily and without oppression. Ojo, therefore, requested a trial-within-trial to determine the voluntariness of the statements.
The issue arose after the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), attempted to tender the statements through the fourth prosecution witness, Alvan Ikoku. During his testimony, Ikoku told the court that the EFCC invited Emefiele for questioning and obtained the statements on different dates, including October 26 and 27, 2023.
In response, Oyedepo withdrew the statement dated October 26, 2023, explaining that it only contained Emefiele’s personal identification details. With no objection from the defence, Justice Oshodi struck out the statement.
However, the prosecution opposed the request for a trial-within-trial regarding the remaining statements, arguing that they were not confessional and therefore did not require such proceedings. Oyedepo further maintained that the Evidence Act, as the legislation governing the admissibility of evidence, should prevail over the Anti-Torture Act on procedural matters.
Replying, Ojo insisted that the issue of voluntariness must first be resolved through a trial-within-trial before the statements could be admitted.
After hearing arguments from both parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned ruling on the admissibility of the statements until July 9, 2026. The substantive trial was also adjourned to October 6, 7, 8, and 9, 2026.
