Proceedings within the trial of former Central {Bank} Governor, Godwin Emefiele, have been stalled on Friday following a heated authorized battle between prosecution and defence groups on the Ikeja Particular Offences Court docket.
The presiding choose, Rahman Oshodi, fastened Could 4, 2026 after either side adopted their last written submissions in a trial-within-trial.
The dispute centres on whether or not an extra-judicial assertion made by co-defendant, Henry Omoile, was obtained voluntarily.
Emefiele is at the moment dealing with a 19-count cost. The fees relate to alleged gratification, abuse of workplace, and corrupt calls for linked to {financial} dealings throughout his time on the apex {bank}. Omoile, alternatively, is being tried on a separate three-count cost over claims of illegal acceptance of items related to transactions involving the Central {Bank}.
Based on the prosecution, the case includes transactions valued at about $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion.
Throughout the session, defence counsel Adeyinka Kotoye (SAN), who represented the second defendant, argued strongly that the principle difficulty earlier than the court docket was the voluntariness of the assertion in query.
“The problem earlier than this court docket is whether or not the assertion credited to the second defendant was made voluntarily,” he stated.
Kotoye advised the court docket that the method utilized in acquiring the assertion didn’t adjust to related provisions of the regulation. He cited sections of the Administration of Legal Justice Regulation and Act, insisting that correct procedures weren’t adopted.
“In conditions the place voluntariness is contested, video recording of the interrogation is crucial. It’s the most dependable option to set up compliance with due course of,” he submitted.
He additionally questioned the credibility of the method, noting that there was no impartial proof to again the alleged confession. He raised issues in regards to the function performed by the authorized practitioner who was stated to be current on the time.
“The mere presence of a authorized practitioner is just not sufficient the place that counsel was unable to successfully discharge his responsibility,” Kotoye argued, suggesting the potential for coercion or inducement.
Counsel to Emefiele, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), supported the place. He urged the court docket to reject the assertion fully.
“Any doubt relating to the voluntariness of an announcement should be resolved in favour of the accused,” Ojo stated.
He relied on provisions of the Proof Act, sustaining that any assertion obtained by means of strain or improper means can’t be accepted in court docket. He added that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution as soon as the difficulty of voluntariness is raised.
“The prosecution has not discharged this burden, significantly in mild of the circumstances surrounding the making of the assertion,” he stated.
Nonetheless, the prosecution, led by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), pushed again in opposition to the arguments.
“The primary defendant’s counsel can’t problem the admissibility of an announcement he didn’t object to when it was tendered. That quantities to an abuse of court docket course of,” Oyedepo argued.
He maintained that due course of was adopted in acquiring the assertion. He admitted that the session was not video recorded however insisted it was accomplished within the presence of the defendant’s lawyer.
“Although the assertion was not video-recorded, it was made within the presence of the second defendant’s counsel,” he stated.
Oyedepo additional argued that the content material of the assertion itself confirmed that it was made freely.
“The second defendant refused to implicate the primary defendant and denied committing the alleged offences. That clearly exhibits he was not below any type of duress,” he submitted.
He additionally dismissed claims of intimidation, stating that the method was open and concerned a number of people. He stated the defendant was correctly cautioned earlier than making the assertion.
Following the arguments, Justice Oshodi adjourned the case to Could 4, 2026, for a ruling on the admissibility of the assertion. He additionally fastened June 26 and June 30, 2026, for the continuation of the principle trial.