Wale Igbintade
The Court of Appeal in Lagos has reserved judgment in an enchantment by former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, difficult a trial decide’s refusal to recuse himself over allegations that his ruling on an alleged $400,000 cost created an impression of judicial bias.
A 3-member panel of the Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Biobele Georgewill, on Tuesday reserved judgment within the enchantment after listening to arguments from counsel to the events.
Other members of the panel are Justices Boloukuromo Ugo and Muslim Hassan.
Emefiele is asking the appellate court docket to put aside the February 26, 2025, ruling of Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, which dismissed his utility searching for the decide’s withdrawal from his ongoing prison trial.
Through his counsel, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, and Olawale Fapohunda, SAN, the previous CBN governor argued that Justice Oshodi prejudged a disputed allegation by allowing the prosecution to ask a number one query suggesting that the alleged $400,000 had been sufficiently established as having been acquired by him.
However, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), by way of its counsel, C.C. Okezie, urged the appellate court docket to dismiss the enchantment, describing it as an abuse of court docket course of.
Okezie requested the panel to study the testimony of the prosecution’s seventh witness, PW7, as contained within the report of proceedings, and uphold the trial decide’s determination.
The court docket stated the date for delivering its judgment could be communicated to the events.
Before listening to the substantive enchantment, the panel deemed correctly filed and served Emefiele’s movement on discover, dated February 6, 2026, searching for to introduce extra data.
It additionally regularised the EFCC’s respondent’s temporary by way of a movement dated January 21, 2026.
The dispute originated on February 24, 2025, through the continuation of Emefiele’s trial, when the prosecution was analyzing PW7.
According to Emefiele’s temporary of argument, the witness had testified that one John Ayoh handed him $400,000.
During the examination-in-chief, prosecution counsel requested the witness: “Is it the same money that you now said you gave the Defendant in his office?”
Emefiele’s counsel objected, arguing that the query was main.
In his ruling, Justice Oshodi acknowledged that the query was main however allowed it below Section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which allows main questions on introductory or undisputed issues and points the court docket considers sufficiently proved.
The decide held: “Having considered the submissions, it is clear that the question put to PW7, is a leading question. However under section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, leading questions maybe allowed as to matters which the PW7, has sufficiently given. For this reason I will allow the question.”
Following the ruling, Emefiele’s counsel utilized for the decide to recuse himself, contending that the choice prompt that he had already shaped a view on the disputed allegation that the previous CBN governor acquired the cash.
Justice Oshodi dismissed the recusal utility on February 26, 2025, holding that the allegation of bias had not been substantiated.
Dissatisfied, Emefiele filed an enchantment dated March 6, 2025, difficult the refusal to withdraw from the case.
In his temporary of argument, Ojo contended that the trial decide’s reliance on the supply allowing main questions on issues sufficiently proved amounted to prejudging a problem that needs to be decided solely after the prosecution had introduced its proof and the defence had been given a possibility to problem it.
He argued that the allegation remained disputed and that PW7 had not been cross-examined when the controversial ruling was delivered.
According to the appellant, the decide’s pronouncement might fairly create the impression that the prosecution had already established that Emefiele acquired the $400,000, however the defence’s proper to problem the witness’s testimony.
Ojo maintained that the proper to a good listening to below Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, consists of the proper to be tried by an neutral court docket.
Relying on judicial authorities, together with In Re Abdullahi (2018), A.I.C. Ltd v. Edo State Government (2016) and CIL Risk & Asset Management Ltd v. Ekiti State Government (2020), he urged the appellate court docket to maintain that the decide’s remarks demonstrated bias or, on the very least, created a probability of bias.
He additionally faulted the trial court docket’s reliance on earlier selections regarding allegations of bias, arguing that they didn’t handle the particular circumstances of a decide allegedly prejudging a substantive difficulty whereas ruling on an interlocutory utility.
The EFCC, nonetheless, urged the appellate court docket to reject Emefiele’s arguments and uphold Justice Oshodi’s determination, sustaining that an examination of PW7’s testimony would display that the trial decide acted accurately.
The enchantment stems from the prison proceedings instituted towards Emefiele below an amended info dated April 3, 2024.
The costs embrace allegations of accepting gratification, corrupt demand and receiving property allegedly obtained fraudulently below Sections 8, 10 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
Count 18 particularly alleged that Emefiele acquired $400,000.
He has pleaded not responsible to all the costs.
