Fresh drama unfolded in the trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Godwin Emefiele, as he moved to block the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission from relying on a series of statements allegedly obtained from him during detention.
Emefiele, who is facing charges involving an alleged $4.5 billion and ₦2.8 billion fraud as well as abuse of office, told the Lagos State High Court that the statements were extracted under what he described as oppressive and inhumane conditions while in EFCC custody.
His lead counsel, Chief Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued before Justice Rahman Oshodi on Friday that the statements were not voluntarily made, insisting that his client had been held incommunicado for more than 157 days before making them.
“The objection is predicated on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act,” Ojo told the court.
The senior advocate further relied on Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act, which prohibits the admission of confessions or statements obtained through torture or any form of degrading 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,” he argued.
According to Ojo, the burden rests squarely on the prosecution to prove that any statement it seeks to tender in evidence was made voluntarily and without intimidation or oppression.
“It is a fundamental requirement that any statement sought to be admitted in evidence must have been made voluntarily and not under oppression,” he submitted.
The issue arose after the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), sought to tender the disputed statements through the fourth prosecution witness, Alvan Ikoku.
While being led in evidence, Ikoku informed the court that the EFCC invited Emefiele for questioning and recorded statements from him on different dates, including October 26 and October 27, 2023.
Following the witness’s testimony, Ojo urged the court to conduct a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were made voluntarily before deciding on their admissibility.
Responding, Oyedepo disclosed that the prosecution had withdrawn the statement dated October 26, 2023, explaining that it only contained Emefiele’s personal identification details.
With no objection from the defence, Justice Oshodi subsequently struck out the statement.
However, the prosecution opposed the request for a trial-within-trial in respect of the remaining statements, maintaining that they were not confessional in nature and therefore did not require such proceedings.
Oyedepo also argued that the Evidence Act, being the principal legislation governing the admissibility of evidence, should take precedence over the Anti-Torture Act on procedural matters.
“The statements are not confessional. Therefore, there is no basis for a trial-within-trial,” he argued, while urging the court to expedite proceedings in view of the public interest generated by the case.
In response, Ojo maintained that the issue of voluntariness must first be resolved before any of the statements could be admitted into evidence.
He insisted that the prosecution had failed to answer the defence’s claim that statements allegedly obtained through torture, oppression or dehumanising treatment are inadmissible before the court.
“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 argued.
After listening to submissions from both sides, Justice Oshodi adjourned ruling on the admissibility of the disputed statements until July 9, 2026.
The judge also fixed October 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2026, for the continuation of the substantive trial.
