Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, on Friday challenged the admissibility of statements the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeks to tender against him in his ongoing trial over 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’s lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued that the statements were obtained under oppressive, dehumanising and torturous conditions while his client was in EFCC custody.
Ojo told the court that the objection was based on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act, insisting that the statements were not made voluntarily.
According to him, Emefiele was held incommunicado for more than 157 days before the statements were obtained.
“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,” Ojo argued.
He maintained that Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act bars the admission of any confession or statement obtained through torture or other inhumane treatment, adding that the prosecution bears the burden of proving that any statement sought to be tendered was made voluntarily.
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.
During his testimony, 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 witness’s testimony, Ojo urged the court to conduct a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made before ruling on their admissibility.
In response, Oyedepo withdrew the statement dated October 26, 2023, explaining that it contained only Emefiele’s personal details. With no objection from the defence, Justice Oshodi struck out the document.
However, the prosecution opposed the request for a trial-within-trial regarding the remaining statements, arguing that they were not confessional and therefore did not require such proceedings.
Oyedepo also submitted that the Evidence Act, being the principal legislation governing the admissibility of evidence, should prevail over the Anti-Torture Act on procedural issues.
“The statements are not confessional. Therefore, there is no basis for a trial-within-trial,” he argued, urging the court to expedite proceedings because of the public interest in the case.
Replying, Ojo insisted that the issue of voluntariness must first be determined before the statements could be admitted into evidence, stressing that allegations of torture, oppression and dehumanising treatment could only be resolved through a trial-within-trial.
After hearing arguments from both parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned 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.
