Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, on Friday contested the admissibility of statements the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) sought to tender against him in his ongoing trial over alleged fraud amounting to $4.5 billion and ₦2.8 billion, as well as abuse of office.
Appearing before Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court, Emefiele, through his lead counsel Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued that the statements were not voluntarily made but were instead extracted under oppressive and dehumanising conditions while he was in EFCC custody.
Ojo submitted that the defence would demonstrate that the circumstances under which the statements were obtained amounted to torture and coercion, thereby rendering them inadmissible in law. He stressed that constitutional safeguards protecting suspects from inhumane treatment were violated, and that the integrity of the judicial process required the exclusion of such evidence.
The defence’s objection sets the stage for a trial-within-trial to determine the voluntariness of the disputed statements, a procedure often employed in Nigerian courts when allegations of torture or duress are raised.
Emefiele’s legal team maintained that the EFCC’s attempt to rely on the contested documents undermines the fairness of the proceedings, insisting that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
The case, which has attracted significant public attention due to the scale of the alleged financial impropriety, continues to highlight broader debates about due process, human rights, and accountability in Nigeria’s anti-corruption efforts.
Ojo argued that the statements were not voluntarily made, alleging 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 submitted that Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act prohibits the admission of any confession or statement obtained through torture or other 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,” he argued.
According to the senior advocate, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that any statement sought to be admitted in evidence 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,” Ojo 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.
During his examination-in-chief, Ikoku told the court that the EFCC invited Emefiele for questioning and obtained the statements on different dates, including October 26 and 27, 2023.
Following the witness’s testimony, Ojo urged the court to conduct a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made before ruling on their admissibility.
In response, Oyedepo informed the court that the prosecution was withdrawing the statement dated October 26, 2023, explaining that it merely contained Emefiele’s personal identification details.
As the defence raised no objection, Justice Oshodi struck out the statement.
However, the prosecution opposed the request for a trial-within-trial in respect of the remaining statements, arguing that they were not confessional and therefore did not require such proceedings.
Oyedepo further contended that the Evidence Act, as the legislation specifically governing the admissibility of evidence, should prevail over the Anti-Torture Act on matters of procedure.
“The statements are not confessional. Therefore, there is no basis for a trial-within-trial,” he argued, urging the court to accelerate proceedings in view of the public interest in the case.
Replying, Ojo maintained that the question of voluntariness must first be resolved before the statements could be admitted in evidence.
He argued that the prosecution had failed to address the defence’s contention 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 hearing submissions from both parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned ruling on the admissibility of the statements until July 9, 2026.
The judge also adjourned the substantive trial to October 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2026.
