•Former CBN Governor Godwin Emefiele
Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele, today challenged the admissibility of a bundle of statements the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission sought to tender against him in his ongoing trial over an alleged $4.5bn and N2.8bn fraud and abuse of office.
Emefiele, through his lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), told Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court that the statements were obtained under oppressive, dehumanising and torturous conditions while his client was in EFCC custody.
Ojo argued that the statements were not voluntarily made, alleging that Emefiele was held incommunicado for more than 157 days before making them,
reports The PUNCH.
“The objection is predicated on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act,” Ojo told the court.
He submitted that Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act prohibits the admission of any confession or statement obtained through torture or other inhumane treatment.
“These statements are products of acts intended to force the first defendant to say what he did not intend to say, having been held incommunicado for over 157 days in EFCC custody,” he argued.
According to the senior advocate, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that any statement sought to be admitted in evidence was made voluntarily and without oppression.
“It is a fundamental requirement that any statement sought to be admitted in evidence must have been made voluntarily and not under oppression,” Ojo submitted.
The issue arose after the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), sought to tender the statements through the fourth prosecution witness, Alvan Ikoku.
During his examination-in-chief, Ikoku told the court that the EFCC invited Emefiele for questioning and obtained the statements on different dates, including October 26 and 27, 2023.
Following the witness’s testimony, Ojo urged the court to conduct a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made before ruling on their admissibility.
In response, Oyedepo informed the court that the prosecution was withdrawing the statement dated October 26, 2023, explaining that it merely contained Emefiele’s personal identification details.
As the defence raised no objection, Justice Oshodi struck out the statement.
However, the prosecution opposed the request for a trial-within-trial in respect of the remaining statements, arguing that they were not confessional and therefore did not require such proceedings.
Oyedepo further contended that the Evidence Act, as the legislation specifically governing the admissibility of evidence, should prevail over the Anti-Torture Act on matters of procedure.
“The statements are not confessional. Therefore, there is no basis for a trial-within-trial,” he argued, urging the court to accelerate proceedings in view of the public interest in the case.
Replying, Ojo maintained that the question of voluntariness must first be resolved before the statements could be admitted in evidence.
He argued that the prosecution had failed to address the defence’s contention that statements allegedly obtained through torture, oppression or dehumanising treatment are inadmissible.
“The issue of voluntariness can only be resolved through a trial-within-trial. Only after such a mini-trial can the court properly determine whether the statements are admissible,” he submitted.
After hearing submissions from both parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned ruling on the admissibility of the statements until July 9, 2026.
The judge also adjourned the substantive trial to October 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2026.
