The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has urged an Ikeja Special Offences Court to admit in evidence the extra-judicial statement of a co-defendant in the ongoing trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Godwin Emefiele, insisting that the statement was made voluntarily and in compliance with the law.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, appearing for the EFCC, told the court that the statement by the second defendant, Henry Omoile, was obtained in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), stressing that it was made in the presence of his counsel, even though it was not video-recorded.
He further argued that the contents of the statement undermine allegations of coercion, noting that Omoile expressly refused to implicate Emefiele in any wrongdoing and also denied committing the offences alleged against him.
According to the DPP, such denials are inconsistent with claims that the statement was extracted through intimidation or inducement, as the defendant maintained an independent position rather than yielding to investigative pressure.
Oyedepo also dismissed allegations of intimidation, pointing out that the statement was taken in the presence of several individuals, making coercion unlikely.
He added that the defendant was duly cautioned and voluntarily signed the cautionary form before making the statement.
He further contended that counsel to Emefiele lacked the basis to challenge the admissibility of the co-defendant’s statement, having initially declined to object when it was tendered, describing the subsequent objection as an abuse of court process.
In response, defence counsel, including Adeyinka Kotoye, SAN, representing the second defendant, and Olalekan Ojo, SAN, for Emefiele, urged the court to reject the statement on the grounds that it was not made voluntarily.
Kotoye argued that the process of obtaining the statement failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the law, particularly Sections 9(3) and (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) and Sections 17(1) and (2) of the ACJA.
He maintained that where voluntariness is in dispute, video recording of the interrogation process is essential, relying on Supreme Court authorities to argue that such recordings are the most reliable means of verifying compliance with due process.
The senior advocate also questioned the role of the legal practitioner said to have been present during the recording of the statement, alleging that the lawyer was prevented from effectively performing his duty.
He further suggested that the statement may have been influenced by coercion or inducement.
On his part, Ojo relied on Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act, which renders inadmissible any statement obtained through oppression or improper means, arguing that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove voluntariness once it is challenged.
He submitted that the prosecution failed to discharge this burden and faulted it for not addressing key aspects of the defendant’s testimony, including allegations of trauma and lack of proper legal representation.
Following the adoption of final written addresses by all parties in the trial-within-trial, Justice Rahman Oshodi adjourned the matter to May 4, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of the statement.
The court also fixed June 26 and June 30, 2026, for the continuation of the substantive trial.
Emefiele is facing a 19-count charge bordering on alleged gratification, corrupt demands, and abuse of office linked to large-scale financial transactions, while Omoile is charged with three counts relating to the alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts in connection with dealings involving the Central Bank of Nigeria.
The charges involve transactions estimated at $4.5 billion and ₦2.8 billion, which the prosecution alleges constitute serious breaches of trust and procedure.
