- Appeal courtroom reserves judgment in ex-CBN governor’s bid to disqualify trial decide
Alex Enumah in Abuja and Wale Igbintade in Lagos
A former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr Godwin Emefiele has requested a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to discharge and acquit him from the alleged $6.23 million and procurement fraud cost introduced towards him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Emefiele predicated his name on the grounds that the evidences of witnesses known as by the anti-graft company in addition to reveals tendered didn’t hyperlink him to the cost towards him.
The federal authorities is prosecuting Emefiele on a 20-count legal cost bordering on breach of belief, forgery, acquiring by false pretence, conspiracy to commit forgery, procurement fraud, and conspiracy to commit a felony.
Besides, he’s additionally accused of complicity within the fraudulent withdrawal of the sum of $6.23 million from the vault of the Abuja department of the apex financial institution.
But Emefiele pleaded not responsible to the whole cost and in addition knowledgeable the courtroom of his intention to file a no-case submission after the prosecution closed its case on the final sitting.
Arguing the no-case movement yesterday, his lead counsel, Mr Mathew Burkaa (SAN) noticed that counts 1 to 14 of the cost relates with how Emefiele allegedly conferred unfair benefit on his shut associates, together with his spouse, and in-law.
Burkaa submitted that not one of the witnesses offered by the anti-graft company was ready to present how he benefited from the allegations or manipulated the Tender Board Committee to award contracts to two corporations on the middle of the cost.
According to the senior lawyer, the one factor the prosecution was ready to present was that Emefiele as the pinnacle of the CBN issued approvals.
“There was nothing to show that he manipulated the committee. There was nothing to show that he told the Tenders Board of the CBN what to do.
“The EFCC evidence showed that the two companies named “April 1616 and Aichtekon executed the car supply contracts awarded them by CBN. So, the corruption would have been that they collected money and they did not do the work.
“The unfairness would have been that Emefiele manipulated the process of the contract award, lobbied to get them to have the contract,” he argued.
Arguing additional, Burkaa stated, the prosecution witnesses made it clear in black and white, that there’s a motive why these corporations have been awarded the contracts as a result of “They bidded less than other companies.”
While stating that the prosecution speculated that the businesses have been guided, he identified that it “could not show who guided them, in what way they were guided, what documents showed that they were guided, no, nobody documented.”
He famous that counts 15 to 20 have been added to the costs when the case was already ongoing, including “These counts focused on the $ 6.23 million withdrawn from CBN and alleged forgery of signatures and documents.
Burkaa noted that Boss Mustapha, a former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) had testified that both his signature and former President Muhammadu Buhari’s were forged. Emefiele also said during EFCC’s interrogation that his was forged.
Since there is a claim of three forged signatures, Burkaa wondered why Boss Mustapha and the late Buhari were not investigated.
He noted that a witness said they ought to have done that and the EFCC’s witnesses were shocked that they did not do that.
Opposing the no case submission, Rotimi Oyedepo, ( SAN)said he will set the record straight to prove why a no-case submission was unnecessary.
He noted that Emefiele was a public officer and he used his position to confer unfair advantage on Archetekon where his wife and brother in-law were listed as directors.
The contracts in count 1 to 14 did not go through the Tender Board Committee (TBC) despite a criteria that a contract of above the threshold of N10 million has to be scrutinised by the board.
“The committee was circumvented for reviewing the contract,” Oyedepo argued. This is the testimony of Pw 3 he added.
Similarly, April 1616 was guided to quote the in-house worth depriving the opposite Nigerian contractors a good probability, he pressured.
“That is not an honest mistake, that is an unfair advantage in the process.”
He stated the general public ought to be bothered concerning the $6.3 million withdrawn from CBN underneath Emefiele’s management, as a result of it’s a breach of belief.
He famous that Burkaa’s narration is that between February 8, 2023 to someday in June 2023 when Emefiele was eliminated from workplace, he was not conscious of the withdrawal and was singled out for persecution.
“The proof earlier than the courtroom doesn’t help that place. There are two important paperwork used as the idea for the discharge of the cash which Mr Mustapha testified have been solid.
“The PW 15 stated that there’s a system that triggers a grievance to Emefiele whereas he was governor. Because there should be a naira cowl for the withdrawal, and Mr Emefiele has to reply to this.
He did nothing until he left workplace, he stated.
After listening to taking arguments for and towards, the decide reserved his ruling on the no case submission to a date that may be communicated to events.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal in Lagos has reserved judgment in an enchantment by 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, yesterday 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 courtroom to put aside the February 26, 2025, ruling of Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, which dismissed his utility looking for the decide’s withdrawal from his ongoing legal 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 EFCC, by means of its counsel, C.C. Okezie, urged the appellate courtroom to dismiss the enchantment, describing it as an abuse of courtroom 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 choice.
The courtroom 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, looking for to introduce further information.
It additionally regularised the EFCC’s respondent’s transient by means 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 transient 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 underneath Section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which allows main questions on introductory or undisputed issues and points the courtroom 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 transient of argument, Ojo contended that the trial decide’s reliance on the availability allowing main questions on issues sufficiently proved amounted to prejudging a difficulty that ought to be decided solely after the prosecution had offered 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 may moderately 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 precise to a good listening to underneath Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, contains the precise to be tried by an neutral courtroom.
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 courtroom to maintain that the decide’s remarks demonstrated bias or, on the very least, created a probability of bias.
He additionally faulted the trial courtroom’s reliance on earlier choices regarding allegations of bias, arguing that they didn’t deal with the particular circumstances of a decide allegedly prejudging a substantive situation whereas ruling on an interlocutory utility.
The EFCC, nonetheless, urged the appellate courtroom to reject Emefiele’s arguments and uphold Justice Oshodi’s choice, sustaining that an examination of PW7’s testimony would reveal that the trial decide acted appropriately.
The enchantment stems from the legal proceedings instituted towards Emefiele underneath an amended info dated April 3, 2024.
The prices embrace allegations of accepting gratification, corrupt demand and receiving property allegedly obtained fraudulently underneath 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.
