News

Emefiele’s trial stalled as EFCC provides fresh evidence

Published

2 weeks ago

May 4, 2024

Godwin Emefiele the embattled former CBN governor arrives in court

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charged Emefiele and Henry Omoile with $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion in gratification and abuse of authority, respectively.

The former Central Bank governor and his co-defendant are on trial for 26 counts.

They were arraigned on April 8, 2024, before the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja.

Emefiele is on trial on 23 counts, including abuse of office, corrupt demand, and obtaining fraudulently obtained property, among others. His co-defendant was charged with three offences related to the acceptance of gifts from agents.

The defendants pleaded not guilty to the accusation.

The prosecution called two witnesses to testify against Emefiele, and the second is currently being cross-examined.

On April 12, 2024, the first prosecution witness, Monday Osazuwa, a dispatch rider, testified that Emefiele had told him several times to collect the sum of $3 million in tranches.

The second prosecution witness, former Central Bank of Nigeria Director of Information Technology John Ayoh, said in court on April 29, 2024, that Emefiele does not issue contracts until bribes are paid.

Ayoh informed the court that the governor (Emefiele) would not authorise anything without taking anything.

“That is how he operates; he will not award contracts without collecting anything,” the witness said.

The trial was stalled at the resumed hearing on Friday due to the prosecution serving more proof of evidence on the defence, which the defence stated they needed to analyse.

When the case was called, the EFCC’s prosecutor, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), informed the court that the second prosecution witness was present for the continuation of cross-examination and that he had served the defence with a statement from one Mr. John Adetola as further proof of evidence.

However, the first defendant’s (Emefiele) attorney, Mr. Olalekan Ojo (SAN), claimed that he had not viewed the documents served on them by the prosecution, stating that justice hastened is justice squashed.

Ojo stated that he was compelled to petition the court to do justice, claiming that the proof must be served early enough.

“The defence may find anything useful in the additional proof of evidence to cross-examine the witness in the box. I humbly urge the court to adjourn this matter so that I can thoroughly go through it and study it,” he said.

Mr. Adeyinka Kotoye (SAN), the second defence lawyer, agreed with the first defence counsel’s statement.

Kotoye claimed that the prosecution would only conduct an investigation in this part of the world while the matter was still in court.

He therefore urged the court to adjourn the case in the interest of justice and give ample time to analyse the additional proof of evidence.

Kotoye asked the court not to consider the ‘trial by ambush’ and put a stop to it.

“I also apply to your lordship to mandate that the prosecution supply us with all relevant materials. In the spirit of fairness, I urge your lordship to adjourn the case,” he said.

However, Oyedepo, the prosecution attorney, strongly objected to the defendants’ request for an adjournment.

He claimed that the two defence counsels were unjust to a senior Nigerian lawyer whom he held in great regard by describing his team and its operations as prosecutorial unfairness.

Oyedepo informed the court that Adetola, who was named as the fifth prosecution witness in the proof of evidence statement, was included in volume two of the documents served on the defence on April 4, 2024.

He said, “In preparation for his testimony that will be coming up not today, not even on May 9, 2024, the prosecution, rather than wait for the defence to formally place a demand on us on what is in the device, diligence prosecution made me make the device available to the defence.

“My lord, how does that amount to prosecutorial unfairness? I plead with the defence not to delay this case unnecessarily, as we have a witness in the box who has given evidence, and he is being cross-examined by the first defence counsel.

“If the defence is angry that I served them the proof of evidence today, we can withdraw it and serve the same on a later day.”

The prosecution informed the court that society was interested in the case and was following the proceedings.