An Ikeja Special Offences Court has fixed May 4, 2026, to rule on the admissibility of an extra-judicial statement linked to the ongoing trial of the former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele.

The presiding judge, Justice Rahman Oshodi, scheduled the ruling after lawyers representing both the prosecution and defence adopted their final written submissions in a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statement was voluntarily made.

According to the prosecution, the alleged offences involve about $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion.

The disputed statement was attributed to Henry Omoile, a co-defendant in the case. While Emefiele is facing a 19-count charge bordering on alleged gratification, abuse of office, and corrupt demands tied to financial dealings, Omoile is being tried on a separate three-count charge over alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts in connection with CBN transactions.

During proceedings, counsel to the second defendant, Adeyinka Kotoye (SAN), argued that the central issue before the court is the voluntariness of the statement.

READ ALSO:

“The issue before this court is whether the statement credited to the second defendant was made voluntarily,” he said.

Kotoye maintained that the process through which the statement was obtained violated provisions of both the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

“In situations where voluntariness is contested, video recording of the interrogation is essential. It is the most reliable way to establish compliance with due process,” he submitted.

He also criticised the prosecution for failing to provide independent corroboration of the statement and questioned the effectiveness of the legal representation allegedly present during its recording.

“The mere presence of a legal practitioner is not enough where that counsel was unable to effectively discharge his duty,” Kotoye argued, adding that the statement may have been influenced by coercion or inducement.

Similarly, counsel to the first defendant, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), urged the court to reject the statement, insisting that any uncertainty surrounding its voluntariness must favour the accused.

“Any doubt regarding the voluntariness of a statement must be resolved in favour of the accused,” Ojo said.

He further relied on provisions of the Evidence Act, stating, “A statement obtained through oppression, inducement, or improper means is inadmissible, and the prosecution has failed to prove otherwise.”

Ojo emphasised that once voluntariness is challenged, the burden shifts to the prosecution to establish that the statement was obtained properly.

“The prosecution has not discharged this burden, particularly in light of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement,” he said.

However, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), urged the court to admit the statement, arguing that the defence had forfeited the right to challenge it.

“The first defendant’s counsel cannot challenge the admissibility of a statement he did not object to when it was tendered. That amounts to an abuse of court process,” Oyedepo argued.

He insisted that the statement was obtained in line with due process, noting that it was made in the presence of legal counsel.

“Though the statement was not video-recorded, it was made in the presence of the second defendant’s counsel,” he said.

Oyedepo also pointed to the substance of the statement as evidence that it was voluntarily made.

“The second defendant refused to implicate the first defendant and denied committing the alleged offences. That clearly shows he was not under any form of duress,” he submitted.

He dismissed allegations of intimidation, maintaining that the process was transparent.

“The statement was taken in the presence of several individuals, and the defendant was duly cautioned and voluntarily signed the cautionary form,” he added.

Following the arguments, Justice Oshodi adjourned proceedings for ruling on May 4, with continuation of the substantive trial scheduled for June 26 and June 30, 2026.