Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele, on Friday urged the Lagos State High Court to reject statements the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission intends to rely on in his ongoing trial over an alleged $4.5bn and N2.8bn fraud, claiming they were obtained through torture, prolonged detention and oppressive conditions.
Emefiele, through his lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued before Justice Rahman Oshodi that the statements were not voluntarily made, insisting they were extracted after the former apex bank governor was held incommunicado for more than 157 days while in EFCC custody.
The former CBN governor is standing trial on charges bordering on alleged abuse of office and financial crimes involving $4.5bn and N2.8bn, allegations he has denied.
Challenging the admissibility of the statements, Ojo said the objection was anchored on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act.
According to him, Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act bars courts from admitting confessions or statements obtained through torture or any form of inhumane treatment.
“These 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 argued.
He maintained that the prosecution had the legal burden of proving that every statement sought to be tendered was made voluntarily and without oppression.
“It is a fundamental requirement that any statement sought to be admitted in evidence must have been made voluntarily and not under oppression,” he submitted.
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 his statements on different dates, including October 26 and 27, 2023.
Following the witness’s testimony, the defence requested the court to conduct a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made before deciding on their admissibility.
However, the prosecution withdrew the statement dated October 26, 2023, explaining that it contained only Emefiele’s personal identification details. With no objection from the defence, Justice Oshodi struck out the document.
Oyedepo, however, opposed the request for a trial-within-trial on the remaining statements, contending that they were not confessional in nature and therefore did not require such proceedings.
He further argued that the Evidence Act, being the principal legislation regulating 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,” Oyedepo argued, urging the court to expedite proceedings in view of the public interest generated by the case.
Responding, Ojo insisted that the question of voluntariness must first be determined before the statements could be admitted as evidence.
He argued that the prosecution failed to address the defence’s allegation that the statements were procured through torture, oppression and other dehumanising treatment.
“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 said.
After listening to arguments from both parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned ruling on the admissibility of the disputed statements until July 9, 2026.
The judge also fixed October 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2026, for the continuation of the substantive trial.
