The Lagos State Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja has admitted into evidence extra-judicial statements allegedly made by former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), dismissing objections raised by the defence.
Delivering a ruling on Thursday, Justice Rahman Oshodi held that the statements were admissible, rejecting claims that they were obtained under duress.
The court ruled that Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act, 2017, relied upon by the defence, does not mandate a trial-within-trial where the statements in question are not confessional.
Justice Oshodi explained that for an extra-judicial statement to qualify as a confession, it must contain a clear and unequivocal admission of the alleged offences. According to him, none of the statements attributed to Emefiele met that threshold.
“There is nothing in the statements that can be construed as an admission of the facts in issue,” the judge ruled while dismissing the defence’s objections.
The court subsequently admitted statements allegedly made by Emefiele on October 27, October 30, November 11, November 12, and November 13, 2023, as exhibits.
Following the ruling, the court adjourned the matter to October 6, 7, and 8, as well as November 11, 12, and 13, 2026, for continuation of trial.
Emefiele is standing trial alongside Henry Omoile on a 19-count charge bordering on abuse of office, receiving gratification, accepting gifts through agents, corruption, and fraudulent property transactions involving about $4.5 billion and ₦2.8 billion.
Omoile is also facing a separate three-count charge of allegedly receiving unlawful gifts connected to transactions involving the CBN.
Both defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
At an earlier hearing, Emefiele’s lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), had urged the court to reject the statements, arguing they were obtained involuntarily after his client allegedly endured physical and psychological pressure during over 150 days in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS).
He maintained that the statements were inadmissible under the Anti-Torture Act and relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, insisting that once voluntariness is challenged, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove otherwise.
Ojo also argued that the absence of video recordings of the interrogations raised serious concerns about due process, describing the statements as compromised and urging the court to resolve any doubts in favour of the accused.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), countered that the defence’s objections were misplaced, stressing that none of the statements constituted confessions.
He argued that the Anti-Torture Act does not require a trial-within-trial where no admission of guilt is involved and urged the court to allow the trial to proceed.
Justice Oshodi agreed with the prosecution’s position, effectively clearing the way for the substantive trial to continue.
