Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, on Friday challenged the admissibility of several statements the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) sought to tender as evidence 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’s lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued that the statements were obtained under oppressive, inhumane and torturous conditions while his client was in EFCC custody.
According to Ojo, the statements were not made voluntarily, claiming that Emefiele was held incommunicado for more than 157 days before making them.
“The objection is predicated on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act,” Ojo told the court.
He maintained that Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act bars the admission of any confession or statement obtained through torture or other forms of inhumane treatment.
“These statements are products of acts intended to compel the first defendant to say what he did not intend to say, having been held incommunicado for over 157 days in EFCC custody,” he argued.
The senior advocate further submitted that the prosecution bears the responsibility of proving that any statement sought to be admitted as evidence was made voluntarily and without any form of oppression.
“It is a fundamental requirement that any statement sought to be admitted in evidence must have been made voluntarily and not under oppression,” Ojo added.
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 informed 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 evidence, the defence urged the court to conduct a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made before deciding on their admissibility.
In response, Oyedepo informed the court that the prosecution was withdrawing the statement dated October 26, 2023, explaining that it only contained Emefiele’s personal identification details.
As the defence did not oppose the request, Justice Oshodi struck out the statement.
However, the prosecution opposed the request for a trial-within-trial regarding the remaining statements, arguing that they were not confessional in nature and therefore did not require such proceedings.
Oyedepo also argued that the Evidence Act, being the legislation governing the admissibility of evidence, should take precedence over the Anti-Torture Act on procedural issues.
“The statements are not confessional. Therefore, there is no basis for a trial-within-trial,” he submitted, while urging the court to expedite the proceedings in view of the public interest surrounding the case.
In his reply, Ojo insisted that the issue of voluntariness must first be determined before the statements could be admitted into evidence.
He argued that the prosecution failed to address the defence’s position that statements allegedly obtained through torture, oppression or dehumanising treatment are inadmissible.
“The issue of voluntariness can only be resolved through a trial-within-trial. Only after such a mini-trial can the court properly determine whether the statements are admissible,” he submitted.
After listening to both parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned ruling on the admissibility of the statements until July 9, 2026.
The court also fixed October 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2026, for the continuation of the substantive trial.
