Fresh controversy has emerged in the ongoing corruption trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, as a defence witness alleged before a Lagos court that officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) tried to pressure a co-defendant to implicate him.
The allegation was made on Thursday at the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, where a defence witness, Mr Nnamdi Offial, told the court that EFCC investigators attempted to coerce his client, Mr Henry Omoile, into making statements against Emefiele.
Offial, a legal practitioner, is counsel to Omoile, who is the second defendant in the ongoing trial involving alleged fraud of $4.5 billion and N2.8 million. He testified during a trial-within-a-trial ordered by the presiding judge, Justice Rahman Oshodi.
The trial-within-a-trial was ordered to determine whether a statement allegedly made by Omoile to the EFCC was given voluntarily or under pressure. Such proceedings are common in criminal trials when a defendant challenges the admissibility of a statement on the grounds that it was obtained by force, threat, or inducement.
Emefiele and Omoile are standing trial on charges bordering on accepting gratification, receiving gifts through agents, corruption, and fraudulent receipt of property. The EFCC also accused them of conferring corrupt advantages on associates, contrary to provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
While giving his testimony, Offial alleged that EFCC investigators offered his client inducements, including the promise of bail and possible non-prosecution, if he agreed to provide evidence that would implicate the former CBN governor.
According to him, the head of the EFCC interrogation team assured Omoile that cooperation with investigators would lead to leniency.
“The second defendant was told that if he cooperated and said what they wanted, he would be granted bail and possibly not prosecuted,” Offial told the court.
He further alleged that the manner in which the EFCC conducted the interrogation was unfair and restrictive. According to him, investigators adopted a strict question-and-answer format and refused to allow Omoile to write down answers that did not align with their expectations.
“On several occasions, questions were put to the second defendant and he answered, but he was not allowed to write them down because the answers did not conform to what the interrogators wanted him to say,” Offial said.
He added that he objected to the process many times, insisting that his client should be allowed to freely record his responses.
Offial also narrated events following the interrogation session of February 26, 2024. He told the court that after the session, EFCC officers informed him that his client would continue to be detained.
The following day, he said he arrived at the EFCC office only to discover that Omoile was being interrogated without his lawyer being present. He said he challenged the process, insisting that his client should not be questioned in his absence.
According to Offial, an EFCC officer identified as David confronted him for interfering in the interrogation. The situation, he said, led to a heated exchange, after which he was escorted out of the premises by security personnel.
“I reported the incident to the team leader, who asked me to remain in the waiting area,” he told the court.
Offial said he was unable to see his client again until about 8pm that day, when EFCC officers returned Omoile to the detention facility.
“Later, I was told that he had refused to cooperate with them and that they were not going to release him,” Offial said.
He explained that it was at that point he applied for bail from the EFCC zonal head, but the request was not immediately granted.
According to the witness, Omoile was detained by the EFCC for 21 days, prompting him to approach the Federal High Court in Lagos to enforce his client’s fundamental human rights.
He told the court that Justice Muslim Hamza, who handled the fundamental rights suit, granted bail to Omoile but ordered that he be remanded at the Ikoyi Correctional Centre pending the perfection of his bail conditions.
The allegations by the defence witness add another layer of complexity to the high-profile trial of Emefiele, who served as CBN governor from 2014 until his suspension in June 2023. Since leaving office, Emefiele has faced several investigations and charges brought by anti-corruption agencies, including the EFCC.
The EFCC has consistently maintained that its investigations and prosecutions are carried out professionally and in line with the law. In this case, the agency insists that the statements obtained from the defendants were made voluntarily.
During cross-examination, EFCC counsel, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), challenged Offial’s claims and drew several admissions from him.
Offial confirmed under oath that EFCC investigators cautioned Omoile in his presence before taking his statement, as required by law. He also admitted that his client signed the caution.
He further acknowledged that he was present during the statement-taking process and that he understood that anything written by his client could be used against him in court.
When asked whether he reported the alleged misconduct of the EFCC officers or filed a formal petition against the agency, Offial admitted that he did not.
He also confirmed that the judge who handled the fundamental rights suit did not indict the EFCC for any wrongdoing or misconduct.
In addition, Offial admitted that his client was not harassed in his presence during the interrogation sessions he attended.
These admissions formed part of the EFCC’s effort to show that Omoile’s statement was made voluntarily and without coercion.
Justice Rahman Oshodi listened to arguments from both sides and adjourned the matter to January 16, 2026, for the continuation of the trial-within-a-trial.
The outcome of the trial-within-a-trial will determine whether the disputed statement will be admitted as evidence in the main trial. If the court finds that the statement was obtained under pressure or inducement, it may be rejected. If admitted, it could play a key role in the prosecution’s case.
As the trial continues, it remains one of the most closely watched corruption cases in the country, given Emefiele’s former position as head of Nigeria’s apex bank and the wider implications for accountability in public office.