The legal battle involving former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele took another twist on Friday as he challenged the admissibility of statements the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeks 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 of the Lagos State High Court, Emefiele, through his lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued that the statements were obtained under oppressive, dehumanising and torturous conditions while he was in EFCC custody.
The defence maintained that the statements were not made voluntarily, alleging that Emefiele was held incommunicado for more than 157 days before making them.
Ojo told the court that the objection was based on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act, arguing that statements obtained through torture or inhumane treatment are inadmissible in law.
According to him, the prosecution has a legal duty to prove that every statement it seeks to tender was made voluntarily and without any form of coercion or oppression.
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.
While giving evidence, Ikoku told the court that the EFCC invited Emefiele for questioning and obtained statements from him on different dates, including October 26 and 27, 2023.
Following the testimony, the defence requested a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made before they could be admitted as evidence.
The prosecution, however, withdrew the October 26, 2023 statement, explaining that it only contained Emefiele’s personal identification details. With no objection from the defence, Justice Oshodi struck out the document.
Oyedepo opposed the request for a trial-within-trial on the remaining statements, arguing that they were not confessional in nature and therefore did not require such proceedings. He also submitted that the Evidence Act should take precedence over the Anti-Torture Act on issues relating to the admissibility of evidence.
The defence disagreed, insisting that the issue of voluntariness must first be determined before any of the statements could be admitted.
Ojo argued that only a trial-within-trial could establish whether the statements were obtained through torture, oppression or other forms of dehumanising treatment.
After listening to both parties, Justice Oshodi reserved ruling on the admissibility of the disputed statements until July 9, 2026.
The court also adjourned the substantive trial to October 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2026.
