Former CBN governor Emefiele asks court to reject disputed statements, alleging prolonged detention, torture and violations during DSS interrogation.
Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, has urged the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, to reject five extra-judicial statements he made while in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), alleging that they were obtained after he was held incommunicado for 157 days and subjected to physical and psychological torture.
The allegation formed the centrepiece of a heated legal battle over the admissibility of the statements in Emefiele’s ongoing trial alongside his co-defendant, Henry Omoile, on a 19-count charge bordering on money laundering and fraud.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) alleged that Emefiele received $17.1 million through an intermediary, Monday Osazuwa, as gratification for facilitating foreign exchange allocations while serving as CBN Governor.
The controversy arose after the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation (DPPF), Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), sought to tender five statements allegedly made by Emefiele on October 26, 27 and 30, as well as November 1 and 2, 2023.
Counsel to the first defendant, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), objected to the admissibility of the statements, arguing that they were involuntary because they were obtained under oppressive conditions while his client remained in DSS custody.
Citing Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act, 2017, and relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, Ojo argued that Emefiele’s prolonged detention amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and that any statement obtained under such circumstances was inadmissible unless the prosecution could prove it was made voluntarily.
“The issue before this court is whether the statements credited to the first defendant were made voluntarily,” Ojo submitted.
He argued that where the voluntariness of a statement is challenged, a video recording of the interrogation is the most reliable evidence of compliance with due process.
According to him, the prosecution failed to produce any video recording of the interviews, rendering the statements “poisoned fruits.”
He urged the court to either reject all the statements or conduct a trial-within-trial to determine whether they were voluntarily made.
Responding, Oyedepo (SAN) argued that a trial-within-trial was unnecessary because none of the statements sought to be tendered amounted to confessional statements.
“There is nothing in the defendant’s statements that can be construed as an admission of the facts in issue,” he submitted.
The prosecution, however, voluntarily withdrew the statement dated October 26, 2023, while insisting that the decision had nothing to do with the defence’s allegation of torture or oppression.
“If the defence does not want that statement, we are prepared to withdraw it. We are withdrawing it not because it was obtained through torture or oppression,” Oyedepo said.
He urged the court to admit the remaining statements made on October 27, October 30, November 1 and November 2, 2023, arguing that the Anti-Torture Act does not require a trial-within-trial in the circumstances of the case.
Earlier, the prosecution called its eighth witness (PW8), EFCC investigator Alvan Gurumnaan, who testified that the statements were recorded in the presence of Emefiele’s lawyer.
Also during the proceedings, counsel to the second defendant, Adeyinka Kotoye (SAN), informed the court of a pending application seeking leave to appeal an earlier ruling.
The prosecution raised no objection, prompting Justice Rahman Oshodi to grant the request.
“I hereby grant the second defendant leave to appeal the ruling of the court,” the judge held.
Following arguments by both parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned the matter till July 9, 2026, for a ruling on the admissibility of the disputed statements.
The court also fixed October 6, 7 and 8, as well as November 11, 12 and 13, 2026, for the continuation of the substantive trial.
