- Former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele has fiercely challenged the admissibility of extrajudicial statements compiled against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in his multi-billion dollar fraud trial.
- Emefiele’s defense team, led by Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued before the Lagos State High Court that the statements were extracted under highly oppressive, dehumanizing, and torturous conditions during a 157-day incommunicado detention.
- Justice Rahman Oshodi has adjourned the case until July 9, 2026, to deliver a highly anticipated ruling on whether a trial-within-trial will be conducted to independently evaluate the voluntariness of the contested documents.
The ongoing high-stakes criminal prosecution of the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, took a dramatic turn at the Lagos State High Court on Friday.
Eko Hot Blog reports that the embattled former apex bank chief formally filed a strong objection challenging the constitutional admissibility of a vital bundle of extrajudicial statements that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is seeking to tender as evidence against him.
EDITOR’S PICK
- Hamzat Appoints Obanikoro as Campaign DG Ahead of 2027 Lagos Governorship Race
- Tinubu’s State Police Plan Gains Momentum as Amendment Looms
- Residents Raise Alarm After Two Bodies Found in Lagos Waterway
Emefiele, who is currently standing trial before Justice Rahman Oshodi over an alleged $4.5 billion and ₦2.8 billion fraud alongside accusations of systemic abuse of office, claims the documents are legally tainted.
Arguing the objection with intense vigor, lead defense counsel Olalekan Ojo (SAN) informed the court that the statements in question were completely stripped of voluntariness, describing them as direct products of systemic institutional coercion.
The senior advocate alleged that his client was subjected to highly oppressive, dehumanizing, and torturous conditions while being held in the custody of the anti-graft agency.
Specifically, Ojo stated that the former central bank governor was kept entirely incommunicado for an astonishing period exceeding 157 days before investigators finally obtained the signatures and written accounts they now seek to use as primary evidence in the multi-billion dollar prosecution.
The defense predicated its core legal arguments on the combined statutory protections established under the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act.
Ojo submitted that Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act explicitly bars any court from admitting confessional statements or general testimonies that are proven to have been obtained through mental or physical torture, or any form of cruel treatment.
He maintained that the extraordinary duration of solitary confinement was purposely designed by investigators to psychologically break the first defendant, ultimately forcing him to sign narratives he never intended to validate.
Under Nigerian law, the prosecution carries the rigorous burden of proving that an accused person’s statements were made voluntarily.
The procedural clash erupted after the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), attempted to formally tender the written statements through the fourth prosecution witness, Alvan Ikoku.
During his initial examination-in-chief, Ikoku had testified that the EFCC routinely invited the former governor for interrogations and legally documented his words on several specific dates, including October 26 and 27, 2023.
Following this testimony, the defense immediately asked the court to pause the substantive trial and initiate a “trial-within-trial”, a specialized mini-proceeding dedicated solely to determining the voluntariness of a defendant’s statement before it can be formally accepted as a court exhibit.
In a swift counter-maneuver, the prosecution sought to minimize the procedural delay by instantly withdrawing one of the contested statements dated October 26, 2023, noting that it only contained basic personal identification biometrics.
With no objection from the defense, Justice Oshodi promptly struck it out. However, Oyedepo fiercely opposed the request for a trial-within-trial regarding the remaining documents.
The federal prosecutor argued that the statements were purely exculpatory rather than confessional, meaning a mini-trial was procedurally unnecessary.
He further insisted that the Evidence Act should take precedence over the Anti-Torture Act on matters of courtroom procedure, urging the court to reject the defense’s request and accelerate the trial in the interest of the public.
Following extensive and technically charged submissions from both senior advocates, Justice Rahman Oshodi chose to reserve his decision on the matter.
The judge officially adjourned the case until July 9, 2026, to deliver a formal ruling on the admissibility of the statements and whether a trial-within-trial will be activated.
Furthermore, to ensure a structured progression for the high-profile corruption case, the court pre-emptively fixed October 6, 7, 8, and 9, 2026, for the definite continuation of the substantive trial, leaving the legal financial community waiting to see how the critical evidentiary battle unfolds.
