Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, 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 an alleged $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion fraud and abuse of office.
At the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, Emefiele’s lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued before Justice Rahman Oshodi that the statements were obtained under oppressive, dehumanising and torturous conditions while the former CBN governor was in EFCC custody.
Ojo told the court that Emefiele was held incommunicado for more than 157 days before making the statements, contending that they were not voluntarily made.
He relied on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act, arguing that Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act prohibits the admission of any confession or statement obtained through torture or other inhumane treatment.
According to him, the prosecution has the burden of proving that any statement sought to be admitted in evidence was made voluntarily and without oppression.
The objection followed an attempt by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), 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 testimony, the defence requested a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made before the court rules on their admissibility.
In response, the prosecution withdrew the statement dated October 26, 2023, explaining that it contained only Emefiele’s personal identification details. As the defence raised no objection, Justice Oshodi struck out the statement.
However, Oyedepo 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.
He further maintained that the Evidence Act, being the law governing the admissibility of evidence, should prevail over the Anti-Torture Act on procedural issues. He also urged the court to expedite the trial in view of the public interest in the case.
Replying, Ojo insisted that the issue of voluntariness must first be resolved before the statements could be admitted, stressing that allegations of torture, oppression and dehumanising treatment made a trial-within-trial necessary.
After hearing submissions 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.
