EFCC Insists Emefiele’s Statements Voluntary, Court Fixes July 9 for Ruling

Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Ikeja Special Offences Court has adjourned the trial of former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, Godwin Emefiele, and his co-defendant, Henry Omoile, until July 9, 2026, for a ruling on the admissibility of extra-judicial statements allegedly made by Emefiele.

The judge fixed the date after counsel to the first defendant, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, argued that the statements the prosecution sought to tender in evidence were not made voluntarily but were obtained through oppression and torture.

Emefiele is standing trial on a 19-count charge bordering on alleged gratification, corrupt demands and abuse of office arising from financial transactions involving about $4.5 billion and ₦2.8 billion.

His co-defendant, Henry Omoile, is facing a three-count charge for allegedly receiving unlawful gifts linked to transactions involving the CBN.

Objecting to the admissibility of the statements, Ojo, SAN, submitted that they were extracted while Emefiele was held in the custody of the Department of State Services, DSS, for over 157 days, during which he allegedly endured physical and psychological torture.

Relying on Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act, 2017, and relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, Ojo argued that the statements were involuntary and therefore inadmissible.

“The issue before this court is whether the statements credited to the first defendant were made voluntarily,” Ojo submitted.

He argued further that where the voluntariness of a statement is disputed, a video recording of the interrogation is the most reliable evidence of compliance with due process. According to him, the absence of any video recording rendered the statements “poisoned fruits.”

Ojo also faulted the prosecution for failing to produce independent evidence to corroborate the alleged confessional statements and questioned the role of the lawyer said to have witnessed the interviews.

“Any doubt regarding the voluntariness of a statement must be resolved in favour of the accused,” he argued, urging the court to reject the statements.

Prosecution’s position

In response, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, who appeared with Bilikisu Buhari and C.C. Okezie, called the prosecution’s eighth witness, PW8, Alvan Gurumnaan, an investigator with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

The witness told the court that Emefiele was invited for questioning and that all interviews were conducted in the presence of his lawyer.

He stated that although the prosecution had 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, as exhibits.

“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,” Oyedepo said.

He maintained that a trial-within-trial was unnecessary because none of the remaining statements amounted to a confession.

“There is nothing in the defendant’s statements that can be construed as an admission of the facts in issue,” he submitted.

Oyedepo also argued that the Anti-Torture Act does not require a trial-within-trial and urged the court to dismiss the defence’s objection and proceed with the accelerated hearing of the substantive case.

Appeal and next dates

Earlier, 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 raised no objection to 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.

After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Oshodi adjourned the case until July 9, 2026, for a 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.