Wale Igbintade
An Ikeja Special Offences Court has been urged by former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, and his co-defendant, Henry Omoile, to reject an extra-judicial statement tendered in evidence, on the grounds that it was not made voluntarily and was allegedly obtained in breach of statutory safeguards.
The court, presided over by Justice Rahman Oshodi, fixed May 4, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of the statement following the adoption of final written addresses by counsel to both the defence and the prosecution in the trial-within-trial proceedings.
The matter forms part of a 19-count charge against Emefiele bordering on alleged gratification, corrupt demands, and abuse of office in connection with large-scale financial transactions.
Omoile, his associate, faces a separate three-count charge alleging unlawful acceptance of gifts while acting as an agent in transactions linked to the CBN.
The prosecution alleged that the disputed transactions involved approximately $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion, which it said constituted breaches of due process and fiduciary obligations.
The defendants, however, have consistently challenged the evidential basis of the charges, insisting that key materials relied upon by the prosecution are unreliable and unlawfully obtained.
Justice Oshodi had earlier ordered a trial-within-trial to determine the voluntariness of Omoile’s statement after objections were raised by the defence.
The court subsequently adjourned for adoption of written addresses after the close of evidence, including cross-examination of witnesses on how the statement was obtained.
Adopting the second defendant’s address, his counsel, Adeyinka Kotoye, SAN, urged the court to hold that the statement was not voluntarily made and therefore inadmissible.
Kotoye argued that the circumstances surrounding the taking of the statement violated mandatory provisions of Sections 9(3) and (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) and Sections 17(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), which regulate the procedure for obtaining statements from suspects.
He contended that where voluntariness is in dispute, video recording of the interrogation process is a critical safeguard, adding that Supreme Court authorities have consistently recognised electronic recording as the most reliable method of ensuring transparency and compliance with due process.
Kotoye further argued that the prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration of the alleged statement and raised questions about the role of the legal practitioner said to have been present during the process, alleging that the lawyer was restricted from effectively performing his duty.
He also submitted that the prosecution misapplied relevant statutory provisions by limiting their scope to confessional statements alone, whereas they apply to all statements obtained during investigation.
He urged the court to resolve all doubts in favour of the defendant and exclude the statement.
Counsel to Emefiele (first defendant), Olalekan Ojo, SAN, aligned with this position, urging the court to resolve any doubt regarding voluntariness in favour of the defence.
Ojo relied on Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act, arguing that any statement obtained through oppression, inducement, or improper means is inadmissible.
He maintained that once voluntariness is challenged, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the statement was freely made.
He submitted that the prosecution failed to discharge this burden, noting that the circumstances surrounding the statement raise serious doubts as to its reliability.
Ojo added that established judicial authorities require courts to admit only statements proven to have been voluntarily made.
He further faulted the prosecution for not sufficiently challenging allegations raised by the defence, including claims of inducement, trauma, and inadequate legal representation, describing the omissions as material gaps in the prosecution’s case.
In opposition, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Federal Ministry of Justice, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the defence objections.
Oyedepo argued that counsel to the first defendant lacked the legal standing to challenge the admissibility of the second defendant’s statement after initially declining to object when it was tendered, describing the later challenge as an abuse of court process.
He maintained that the statement was taken in substantial compliance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and was made in the presence of the second defendant’s counsel, even though it was not video-recorded.
The DPP further argued that the content of the statement itself undermines the defence claims of coercion, noting that Omoile expressly refused to implicate Emefiele in any wrongdoing and also denied committing the offences alleged against him.
According to him, these denials demonstrate that the statement was made independently and not under any form of duress or undue influence.
Oyedepo also dismissed allegations of intimidation, stating that the statement was taken in the presence of several individuals, which made coercion unlikely.
He added that the defendant was duly cautioned and voluntarily signed the cautionary form before making the statement.
Following the adoption of written addresses by all parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned the matter to May 4, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of the disputed statement.
The court also fixed June 26 and June 30, 2026, for continuation of the substantive trial.
🚨 BREAKING: Watch the full clip here ➤
