$4.5bn, N2.8bn Trial: Emefiele Challenges EFCC's Bid to Tender Statements, Alleges Torture

 $4.5bn, N2.8bn Trial: Emefiele Challenges EFCC's Bid to Tender Statements, Alleges Torture

By SAM POPOOLA

Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, on Friday challenged the attempt by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to tender a bundle of statements allegedly made by him in his ongoing trial over an alleged $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion fraud and abuse of office case.

Emefiele, through his lead counsel, Mr. Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued before Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court that the statements were obtained under oppressive, dehumanising and torturous conditions while he was in EFCC custody.

Ojo submitted that the statements were inadmissible because they were not voluntarily made, contending that his client was held incommunicado for more than 157 days before making the statements.

"The objection is predicated on the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Anti-Torture Act," Ojo told the court.

He argued that Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act prohibits the admission of any confession or statement obtained through torture or other inhumane treatment.

"These statements are products of acts intended to force the first defendant to say what he did not intend to say, having been held incommunicado for over 157 days in EFCC custody," he submitted.

According to the senior advocate, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that any statement sought to be admitted was made voluntarily and without oppression.

"It is a fundamental requirement that any statement sought to be admitted in evidence must have been made voluntarily and not under oppression," Ojo argued.

The legal dispute arose after the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), sought to tender the statements through the fourth prosecution witness (PW4), Mr. Alvan Ikoku.

PW4 told the court during his examination-in-chief that the EFCC invited Emefiele for questioning and obtained the statements on different dates, including October 26 and 27, 2023.

Ojo consequently urged the court to conduct a trial-within-trial to determine whether the statements were voluntarily made before deciding on their admissibility.

Responding, Oyedepo informed the court that the prosecution was willing to withdraw the statement dated October 26, 2023, describing it as merely containing Emefiele's personal identification details.

As the defence raised no objection, Justice Oshodi struck out the statement.

However, the prosecution opposed the request for a trial-within-trial on the remaining statements, arguing that they were not confessional in nature and therefore did not require such proceedings.

Oyedepo further submitted that the Evidence Act, being the specific legislation governing admissibility of evidence, should prevail over the Anti-Torture Act on the issue of procedure.

"The statements are not confessional. Therefore, there is no basis for a trial-within-trial," he argued, while urging the court to accelerate the hearing in view of the public interest in the case.

In his reply, Ojo maintained that the issue of voluntariness must first be determined before the statements could be admitted.

He argued that the prosecution failed to address the defence's contention that statements allegedly obtained through torture, oppression or dehumanising conditions are inadmissible.

"The issue of voluntariness can only be resolved through a trial-within-trial. Only after such a mini-trial can the court properly determine whether the statements are admissible," he submitted.

Following arguments from both parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned ruling on the admissibility of the statements until July 9.

The substantive trial was further adjourned to October 6, 7, 8 and 9, with proceedings scheduled to commence at 12 noon on each day.