Justice Rahman Oshodi of an Ikeja Special Offences Court on Friday adjourned till May 4, 2026, to deliver a ruling on the admissibility of 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 fixed the date for the ruling after counsel for both the prosecution and defence adopted their final written addresses in a trial-within-trial focused on whether the statement was voluntarily made.
Emefiele is facing a 19-count charge bordering on alleged gratification, corrupt demands, and abuse of office tied to financial transactions, while Omoile is standing trial on a three-count charge over the alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts in connection with CBN-related dealings.
The prosecution alleged that the transactions involved about $4.5bn and N2.8bn.
While arguing on behalf of the second defendant, Adeyinka Kotoye, (SAN), told the court that the crux of the matter is the voluntariness of the statement.
“The issue before this court is whether the statement credited to the second defendant was made voluntarily,” he said.
Kotoye argued that the process of obtaining the statement 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).
“In situations where voluntariness is contested, video recording of the interrogation is essential. It is the most reliable way to establish compliance with due process,” he submitted.
He further faulted the prosecution for failing to provide independent evidence to support the alleged confessional statement and questioned the role of the lawyer said to have been present.
“The mere presence of a legal practitioner is not enough where that counsel was unable to effectively discharge his duty,” Kotoye argued, adding that the statement may have been influenced by coercion or inducement.
Counsel to the first defendant, Olalekan Ojo, (SAN), also urged the court to discountenance the statement.
“Any doubt regarding the voluntariness of a statement must be resolved in favour of the accused,” Ojo said.
Citing Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act, he added, “A statement obtained through oppression, inducement, or improper means is inadmissible, and the prosecution has failed to prove otherwise.”
He maintained that the burden rests on the prosecution once voluntariness is challenged.
“The prosecution has not discharged this burden, particularly in light of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement,” he said, noting that key aspects of the defendant’s testimony were not challenged.
But the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), urged the court to admit the statement in evidence.
“The first defendant’s counsel cannot challenge the admissibility of a statement he did not object to when it was tendered. That amounts to an abuse of court process,” Oyedepo argued.
He insisted that the statement was obtained in line with the law.
“Though the statement was not video-recorded, it was made in the presence of the second defendant’s counsel,” he said.
Oyedepo also pointed to the contents of the statement as evidence of its voluntariness.
“The second defendant refused to implicate the first defendant and denied committing the alleged offences. That clearly shows he was not under any form of duress,” he submitted.
He dismissed claims of intimidation, stressing that the process was transparent.
“The statement was taken in the presence of several individuals, and the defendant was duly cautioned and voluntarily signed the cautionary form,” he added.
Following the submissions, Justice Oshodi adjourned the matter for ruling on May 4, 2026, and fixed June 26 and June 30, 2026, for the continuation of the substantive trial.
