Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, has asked the Lagos State High Court to reject a series of statements the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) intends to rely on in his ongoing trial over an alleged $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion fraud and abuse of office.
Appearing before Justice Rahman Oshodi on Friday, Emefiele, through his lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued that the statements were extracted while he was being held in conditions that violated both the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act.
According to the defence, the former CBN governor was kept in prolonged detention without communication and subjected to oppressive treatment before the statements were obtained.
Addressing the court, Ojo said, “The objection is predicated on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act.”
He maintained that the Anti-Torture Act expressly bars courts from admitting statements secured through torture or other forms of 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.
The senior advocate further submitted that the prosecution has a legal obligation to establish that every statement it seeks to tender was made freely and without coercion.
“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), attempted to tender the statements through the fourth prosecution witness, Alvan Ikoku.
While giving evidence, Ikoku informed the court that the EFCC invited Emefiele for interrogation and recorded statements from him on different occasions, including October 26 and 27, 2023.
Following the witness’s testimony, the defence requested that the court conduct a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made before deciding on their admissibility.
In response, the prosecution withdrew one of the statements dated October 26, 2023, explaining that it contained only the defendant’s personal identification information. With no objection from the defence, Justice Oshodi struck out the document.
The prosecution, however, resisted the application for a trial-within-trial concerning the remaining statements, insisting they were not confessional in nature and therefore did not require such a procedure.
Addressing the court, Oyedepo argued:
“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.
He also submitted that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence should be determined primarily under the Evidence Act, rather than the Anti-Torture Act.
Responding, Ojo maintained that the court must first determine whether the statements were made voluntarily before deciding whether they could be admitted into evidence.
He argued that the prosecution had failed to answer the defence’s allegation that the statements were obtained through torture, oppression or degrading treatment.
“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 listening to submissions from both parties, Justice Oshodi reserved ruling on the admissibility of the disputed statements until July 9, 2026.
The court also fixed October 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2026, for the continuation of the substantive trial.
(Ripples)