Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele, on Friday opposed the admission of several statements the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission intends to rely on in his ongoing trial over allegations involving $4.5bn and N2.8bn fraud as well as abuse of office.
According to The Punch, appearing before Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court, Emefiele’s lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued that the statements were obtained under circumstances that violated his client’s rights, claiming they were secured through oppressive and degrading treatment while Emefiele was in EFCC custody.
According to Ojo, the former CBN governor was allegedly held without communication for more than 157 days before the statements were made, raising concerns about their voluntariness.
“The objection is predicated on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act,” Ojo told the court.
He maintained that Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act bars the use of confessions or statements procured through torture or any form 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.
Ojo further submitted that the law places the responsibility on the prosecution to establish that any statement tendered in court 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 emerged when 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 had invited Emefiele for questioning and recorded statements from him on several dates, including October 26 and 27, 2023.
Following the 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, Oyedepo disclosed that the prosecution was withdrawing the statement dated October 26, 2023, noting that it only contained Emefiele’s personal details.
With no objection from the defence, Justice Oshodi struck out the document from the proceedings.
The prosecution, however, resisted the request for a trial-within-trial regarding the remaining statements, arguing that they were not confessional in nature and therefore did not warrant such a process.
Oyedepo also submitted that issues relating to the admissibility of evidence should be governed primarily by the Evidence Act, which he described as the applicable legislation on procedural matters.
“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.
Responding, Ojo insisted that the court must first determine whether the statements were made voluntarily before admitting them into evidence.
He argued that the prosecution had not addressed the defence’s position that any statement obtained through torture, oppression or degrading treatment cannot be admitted by the court.
“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 arguments from both sides, Justice Oshodi reserved ruling on the admissibility of the statements until July 9, 2026.
The court subsequently adjourned the substantive hearing of the case to October 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2026.
