Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Special Offences Court, Ikeja has fixed May 4, 2026, to rule on the admissibility of an extra-judicial statement made by Henry Omoile, a Co-defendant in the ongoing trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN Governor, Godwin Emefiele.
The trial judge adjourned the matter after counsel to both the prosecution and defence adopted their final written addresses in a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statement credited to Omoile was voluntarily made and admissible in evidence.
Emefiele and Omoile are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on a 19-count charge bordering on alleged abuse of office and fraud involving $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion.
Omoile, the second defendant, is also facing a separate three-count charge over alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts in transactions linked to the CBN.
During proceedings, counsel to Omoile, Adeyinka Kotoye, SAN, argued that the central issue before the court was the voluntariness of the statement.
He contended that the process of obtaining the statement did not comply with Sections 9(3) and (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law and Sections 17(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
He emphasised the importance of video recording interrogations where voluntariness is disputed, describing it as the most reliable proof of due process.
Kotoye further submitted that the prosecution failed to provide independent evidence to corroborate the alleged confessional statement and questioned the role of the legal practitioner said to have been present during its recording.
He alleged that the lawyer was prevented from effectively discharging his duty and suggested the statement may have been influenced by coercion or inducement, urging the court to reject it.
Counsel to Emefiele, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, also urged the court to resolve any doubt in favour of the defence.
He relied on Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act, which renders inadmissible any statement obtained through oppression or improper means.
Ojo argued that once voluntariness is challenged, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the statement was freely made, adding that the prosecution failed to discharge that burden.
However, Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, in the Federal Ministry of Justice, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, opposed the defence submissions and urged the court to admit the statement.
He argued that the defence lacked the basis to challenge the statement, describing the objection as an abuse of court process since no initial objection was raised when it was tendered.
Oyedepo maintained that the statement was obtained in substantial compliance with the law, noting that although it was not video-recorded, it was made in the presence of Omoile’s personal lawyer.
He added that the contents of the statement itself contradicted claims of coercion, as Omoile neither implicated Emefiele nor admitted to committing the alleged offences.
The DPP further dismissed allegations of intimidation, stating that the statement was taken in the presence of several individuals and that the defendant was duly cautioned and voluntarily signed the cautionary form before making the statement.
Following the adoption of arguments by both parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned the case to May 4, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of the statement, while fixing June 26 and June 30, 2026, for continuation of the substantive trial.
