FORMER Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, on Friday challenged the admissibility of statements the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is seeking to tender against him in his ongoing trial over an alleged $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion fraud and abuse of office, claiming they were obtained through torture and oppressive treatment.
News Point Nigeria reports that Emefiele, through his lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), told Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court that the statements were neither voluntary nor legally admissible because they were allegedly obtained while he was held incommunicado under dehumanising conditions in EFCC custody.
His lawyer alleged that the former CBN governor was detained in isolation for more than 157 days before making the statements, insisting that the court must first determine whether they were voluntarily made before admitting them as evidence.
Ojo argued that the objection was anchored on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act, maintaining that both laws protect individuals from having statements obtained through torture or inhumane treatment admitted in court.
“The objection is predicated on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act,” Ojo told the court.
He submitted that Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act expressly prohibits the admission of any confession or statement obtained through torture or other forms of inhumane treatment.
“These 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,” the senior advocate argued.
According to him, the burden rests on the prosecution to establish that every statement sought to be admitted in evidence was made voluntarily and without any form of oppression.
“It is a fundamental requirement that any statement sought to be admitted in evidence must have been made voluntarily and not under oppression,” Ojo submitted.
The issue arose after the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), sought to tender the statements through the fourth prosecution witness, Alvan Ikoku.
During his examination-in-chief, Ikoku told the court that the EFCC invited Emefiele for questioning and obtained the statements on different dates, including October 26 and 27, 2023.
Following the witness’s testimony, Ojo urged the court to conduct a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made before ruling on their admissibility.
In response, Oyedepo informed the court that the prosecution was withdrawing the statement dated October 26, 2023, explaining that it merely contained Emefiele’s personal identification details.
As the defence raised no objection, Justice Oshodi struck out the statement.
However, the prosecution opposed the request for a trial-within-trial regarding the remaining statements, arguing that they were not confessional in nature and therefore did not require such proceedings.
Oyedepo further contended that the Evidence Act, being the principal legislation governing the admissibility of evidence, should prevail over the Anti-Torture Act on procedural issues.
“The statements are not confessional. Therefore, there is no basis for a trial-within-trial,” he argued, urging the court to accelerate proceedings in view of the public interest surrounding the case.
Replying, Ojo maintained that the question of voluntariness must first be resolved before the statements could be admitted into evidence.
He argued that the prosecution had failed to address the defence’s contention that statements allegedly obtained through torture, oppression or dehumanising treatment are inadmissible.
“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,” he submitted.
After hearing submissions from both parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned ruling on the admissibility of the statements until July 9, 2026.
The judge also adjourned the substantive trial to October 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2026.