Emefiele challenges EFCC statements in $4.5bn fraud trial

Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele, has challenged the admissibility of statements the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeks to tender as evidence in his ongoing trial over an alleged $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion fraud and abuse of office.

At the resumed hearing before Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court on Friday, 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.

Ojo told the court that Emefiele was held incommunicado for more than 157 days before making the statements, insisting they were not voluntarily made.

He argued that both the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act prohibit the admission of statements obtained through torture, oppression or degrading treatment.

“The 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 submitted.

He further urged the court to conduct a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were made voluntarily before deciding on their admissibility.

The issue arose after the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), sought to tender the statements through the fourth prosecution witness, Alvan Ikoku.

While giving evidence, Ikoku told the court that the EFCC invited Emefiele for questioning and recorded statements from him on different dates, including October 26 and 27, 2023.

Responding to the defence’s objection, Oyedepo withdrew the statement dated October 26, 2023, explaining that it contained only Emefiele’s personal identification details. The defence did not oppose the withdrawal, and the court struck out the document.

However, the prosecution opposed the request for a trial-within-trial on the remaining statements, arguing that they were not confessional and therefore did not require a separate hearing to determine their admissibility.

Oyedepo also argued that the Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of evidence, should prevail over the Anti-Torture Act on procedural issues. He urged the court to allow the trial to proceed without delay, citing the public interest in the case.

In response, Ojo maintained that the issue of voluntariness must first be determined before the statements could be admitted as evidence.

After listening to both parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned ruling on the admissibility of the statements until July 9, 2026.

The judge also fixed October 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2026, for the continuation of the substantive trial.