A Lagos Special Offences Court has admitted extra-judicial statements allegedly made by former CBN Governor Godwin Emefiele to the EFCC, ruling they were not confessional and dismissing the defence’s objections
Court Admits Godwin Emefiele’s EFCC Statements, Says They Were Not Confessions
The Lagos State Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja has admitted into evidence extra-judicial statements allegedly made by former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), dismissing objections by the defence that they were obtained under duress.
Delivering his ruling on Thursday, Justice Rahman Oshodi held that the statements were admissible, ruling that they did not amount to confessional statements and therefore did not require a trial-within-trial under the Anti-Torture Act, 2017.
The judge explained that for an extra-judicial statement to qualify as a confession, it must contain a clear and unequivocal admission of the offences alleged against its maker.
“There is nothing in the statements that can be construed as an admission of the facts in issue,” Justice Oshodi held while dismissing the defence’s objections.
The court subsequently admitted as exhibits statements allegedly made by Emefiele on October 27, October 30, November 11, November 12 and November 13, 2023.
Justice Oshodi thereafter adjourned the case to October 6, 7 and 8, as well as November 11, 12 and 13, 2026, for the continuation of trial.
Emefiele is standing trial alongside Henry Omoile on a 19-count charge bordering on alleged 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 separately facing a three-count charge of allegedly receiving unlawful gifts linked to transactions involving the CBN. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty to all charges preferred against them by the EFCC.
At the previous hearing, Emefiele’s lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), urged the court to reject the statements, arguing that they were obtained involuntarily after his client was allegedly subjected to physical and psychological torture during more than 157 days in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS).
Ojo argued that the statements were inadmissible under the Anti-Torture Act and the Evidence Act, maintaining that once the voluntariness of a statement is challenged, the prosecution bears the burden of proving it was freely made.
The senior advocate further submitted that a video recording of the interrogation would have been the strongest proof of compliance with due process. In its absence, he described the statements as “poisoned fruits” and questioned the role of the lawyer who reportedly witnessed the interviews, urging the court to resolve any doubts in favour of the accused.
Responding, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), argued that the defence’s application was misconceived because none of the statements constituted a confession.
He maintained that the Anti-Torture Act does not make a trial-within-trial mandatory where the statements sought to be tendered contain no admission of guilt, urging the court to dismiss the objections and allow the substantive trial to proceed.
Justice Oshodi agreed with the prosecution’s position, clearing the way for the trial to continue on the scheduled dates.
