RismadarVoice Reporters, June 26, 2026
The Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, has reserved ruling until July 9 on the admissibility of extra-judicial statements allegedly made by former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, in his ongoing $4.5 billion fraud trial.
Justice Rahman Oshodi fixed the date on Friday after hearing arguments from both the prosecution and defence on whether the statements were voluntarily made.
Emefiele is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on a 19-count charge bordering on receiving gratification and making corrupt demands while serving as CBN governor. His co-defendant, Henry Omoile, is facing a three-count charge of unlawful acceptance of gifts by an agent. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty.
During the proceedings, counsel to Emefiele, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), opposed the admissibility of the statements, arguing that they were obtained under physical and mental torture while his client was detained by the Department of State Services (DSS) for more than 157 days.
He relied on the Anti-Torture Act, 2017, and the Evidence Act, contending that the statements were involuntary and inadmissible, adding that the absence of video recordings of the interrogations raised doubts about their authenticity.
In response, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), called an EFCC investigator, Alvan Gurumnaan, who testified that Emefiele’s interviews were conducted in the presence of his lawyer.
The prosecution also withdrew one of the statements dated October 26, 2023, but sought to tender statements made on October 27, October 30, November 1 and November 2, 2023.
Oyedepo argued that the remaining statements were not confessional in nature and therefore did not warrant a trial-within-trial. He urged the court to dismiss the defence’s objection and allow the trial to proceed.
Earlier, counsel to the second defendant, Adeyinka Kotoye (SAN), informed the court of a pending application seeking leave to appeal an earlier ruling. The prosecution did not oppose the application, which was subsequently granted by the court.
