COURT ADJOURNS RULING ON CO-DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT IN EMEFIELE CASE
Read Time:2 Minute, 21 Second
By: Balogun Ibrahim
Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Ikeja Special Offences Court on Friday postponed his ruling until May 4, 2026, on whether to admit an extra-judicial statement made by Henry Omoile, a co-defendant in the trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Godwin Emefiele.
The judge scheduled the ruling after both prosecution and defence lawyers adopted their final written submissions in a trial-within-trial examining whether the statement was given voluntarily.
Emefiele is facing a 19-count charge involving alleged gratification, corrupt demands, and abuse of office linked to financial transactions, while Omoile is being tried on a three-count charge over the alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts related to CBN dealings. The prosecution claims the transactions involved about $4.5 billion and ₦2.8 billion.
Counsel for the second defendant, Adeyinka Kotoye (SAN), argued that the key issue is whether the statement was made voluntarily. He contended that the process breached Sections 9(3) and (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) and Sections 17(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), emphasizing that video recording of interrogations is crucial when voluntariness is disputed.
Kotoye also criticized the prosecution for failing to provide independent evidence supporting the alleged confessional statement and questioned the effectiveness of the lawyer said to have been present, suggesting the statement may have been obtained through coercion or inducement.
READ MORE…
INEC CONCLUDES CVR PHASE II, SHIFTS TO CLAIMS AND OBJECTIONS NATIONWIDE
Similarly, counsel for the first defendant, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), urged the court to reject the statement, noting that any doubt about voluntariness should favour the accused. Citing Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act, he argued that statements obtained through oppression or improper means are inadmissible and maintained that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), urged the court to admit the statement, arguing that the first defendant’s counsel could not challenge its admissibility after failing to object when it was tendered. He maintained that the statement was obtained lawfully, noting that although it was not video-recorded, it was made in the presence of the second defendant’s lawyer.
Oyedepo further argued that the content of the statement supports its voluntariness, pointing out that the second defendant neither implicated the first defendant nor admitted to the alleged offences, indicating an absence of duress. He also dismissed claims of intimidation, stating that the process was transparent and conducted in the presence of multiple individuals, with the defendant properly cautioned before signing.
Following these arguments, Justice Oshodi adjourned the matter to May 4, 2026, for a ruling, and scheduled June 26 and June 30, 2026, for continuation of the main trial.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0