The trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, took another dramatic turn on Friday as he challenged the admissibility of several statements obtained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), claiming they were extracted under torture, prolonged detention and other oppressive conditions.
Emefiele, who is facing charges involving an alleged $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion fraud as well as abuse of office, urged the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja to reject the statements, insisting that they were not made voluntarily.
Appearing before Justice Rahman Oshodi, Emefiele’s lead counsel, Chief Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued that the former CBN governor was subjected to inhumane treatment while in EFCC custody and held incommunicado for more than 157 days before making the statements.
According to Ojo, the defence’s objection is based on the provisions of both the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act, which prohibit the admission of statements obtained through torture or other cruel and degrading treatment.
He told the court that any statement obtained through force, intimidation or oppressive detention cannot be admitted as evidence against an accused person.
“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.
The senior advocate further argued that Nigerian law places the burden on the prosecution to prove that every statement sought to be admitted in evidence was made freely and voluntarily.
According to him, the court cannot simply accept the documents without first determining whether they were obtained in compliance with the law.
“It is a fundamental requirement that any statement sought to be admitted in evidence must have been made voluntarily and not under oppression,” he argued.
The issue arose during the testimony of the fourth prosecution witness, Alvan Ikoku, who informed the court that EFCC investigators invited Emefiele for questioning and recorded statements from him on different dates, including October 26 and October 27, 2023.
After the witness identified the documents, the prosecution, led by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), sought to tender the statements as exhibits.
However, the defence immediately objected and asked the court to conduct what is known in law as a “trial-within-trial” before deciding whether the statements could be admitted.
A trial-within-trial is a separate proceeding conducted during a criminal trial to determine whether a disputed confession or statement was obtained voluntarily. The court must first decide this issue before relying on the statement as evidence in the main case.
Ojo maintained that such a procedure had become necessary because the defence had raised serious allegations of torture, prolonged detention and dehumanising treatment against the anti-graft agency.
Responding, Oyedepo informed the court that the prosecution was withdrawing one of the statements dated October 26, 2023.
He explained that the document merely contained Emefiele’s personal details and was not relevant to the issues in dispute.
Since the defence did not oppose the withdrawal, Justice Oshodi struck out the document from the proceedings.
The prosecution, however, opposed the request for a trial-within-trial regarding the remaining statements.
Oyedepo argued that the statements were not confessional in nature and therefore did not require a separate hearing to determine their voluntariness.
According to him, the Evidence Act, which specifically regulates the admissibility of evidence in court, should take precedence over the Anti-Torture Act on procedural issues relating to the admission of documents.
He urged the court to dismiss the defence’s application and allow the trial to proceed without unnecessary delay.
“The statements are not confessional. Therefore, there is no basis for a trial-within-trial,” Oyedepo argued.
He also appealed to the court to ensure that proceedings moved quickly, noting that the case has attracted significant public interest because it involves the country’s former chief banker.
In response, Ojo insisted that the prosecution had failed to address the central issue raised by the defence.
He argued that whether or not the statements amounted to confessions, the court must first determine whether they were obtained voluntarily, especially where allegations of torture and unlawful detention had been made.
According to him, the Anti-Torture Act clearly prohibits the use of evidence obtained through torture or inhuman treatment.
He maintained that only a trial-within-trial would enable the court to properly examine the circumstances under which the statements were recorded.
“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,” Ojo submitted.
After listening to arguments from both the prosecution and the defence, Justice Oshodi reserved his ruling on whether the disputed statements should be admitted in evidence.
The judge fixed July 9, 2026, for the ruling.
He also adjourned further hearing of the substantive trial to October 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2026.
Emefiele is standing trial over allegations that, while serving as governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, he abused his office and was involved in financial transactions amounting to about $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion.
The charges are among several criminal cases instituted against the former CBN governor following his suspension from office by President Bola Tinubu shortly after the new administration assumed power in 2023.
Since then, the former apex bank chief has repeatedly denied all allegations against him, maintaining that he acted within the powers granted to him by law during his tenure.
The EFCC, on its part, insists that it possesses sufficient evidence to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and has continued to call witnesses in support of its case.
Friday’s proceedings did not touch on the substance of the financial allegations against Emefiele. Instead, the arguments centred on whether the prosecution can rely on statements allegedly obtained from him during his detention.
The court’s ruling on July 9 is expected to determine whether the disputed statements will form part of the evidence to be considered when the trial resumes later in October.