Former CBN governor’s lawyers say allegations were absent from prosecution’s proof of evidence
The defence team of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, has accused the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of attempting to introduce fresh evidence outside the prosecution’s disclosed case materials, describing the move as an attempt to subject the defendants to a “trial by ambush.”
The objection centred on evidence concerning the alleged recovery of more than $2 million from a lawyer’s office, as well as claims linking the lawyer to Emefiele and some companies under investigation.
The defence argued that these allegations were not contained in the prosecution’s proof of evidence and should not be introduced through a witness without the filing and service of additional evidence on the defendants.
According to the defence, allowing such evidence without prior disclosure could prejudice the defendants’ ability to prepare their case and undermine their constitutional right to a fair hearing.
The dispute arose on Thursday during the continuation of Emefiele’s trial alongside his co-defendant, Henry Omoile, before the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, presided over by Justice Rahman Oshodi.
The prosecution was represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), while Olalekan Ojo (SAN) appeared for Emefiele and Kazeem Gbadamosi (SAN) represented Omoile.
The disagreement occurred during the testimony of the prosecution’s eighth witness, an EFCC investigator, Alvan Gurumnaan, who was presenting findings from the commission’s investigation into alleged financial impropriety and gratification involving the former CBN governor.
Defence counsel, Ojo, objected when the witness began giving evidence about the alleged recovery of more than $2 million from a lawyer’s office and the lawyer’s purported relationship with Emefiele and certain companies.
Ojo argued that the prosecution could not introduce materially new allegations through a witness without first filing and serving additional proof of evidence on the defence.
He maintained that the defendants were entitled to know the specific allegations they were required to answer and urged the court not to allow the prosecution to depart from its disclosed case.
However, Oyedepo opposed the objection, arguing that the EFCC investigator was entitled to testify about findings made during the commission’s investigation.
The prosecution further maintained that the properties mentioned by the witness had featured in previous judicial proceedings involving Emefiele and could not reasonably be regarded as unknown to him.
In his testimony, Gurumnaan alleged that the EFCC recovered more than $2 million from the office of a lawyer said to be connected to Emefiele. He further described the lawyer as allegedly acting as a front for the former CBN governor and claimed that the lawyer served as secretary to several companies linked to the investigation.
The investigator also presented evidence concerning properties allegedly associated with Emefiele, including twin duplexes in Lekki Phase 1 and two mansions on Queen’s Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos.
According to the witness, the investigation uncovered assets he considered disproportionate to what Emefiele could legitimately have acquired from his known income.
He also referred to previous forfeiture proceedings involving some of the properties and estimated their value at hundreds of billions of naira.
However, the witness acknowledged that Emefiele denied the allegations in his extra-judicial statement to the EFCC.
The defence also challenged the relevance of the investigator’s testimony concerning foreign exchange transactions, arguing that the evidence related to charges that were no longer before the court.
Ojo reminded the court that counts one to four, which concerned foreign exchange transactions, had earlier been struck out.
He argued that allowing the prosecution to continue presenting evidence on those matters could prejudice the defendants and create an impression of wrongdoing over allegations that were no longer part of the surviving charges.
He therefore urged the court to restrict the witness’s testimony to issues relevant to the remaining charges.
Oyedepo, however, described the objection as premature, arguing that the evidence was connected to the prosecution’s allegations of gratification and should be considered in the context of the surviving counts.
After listening to both sides, Justice Oshodi directed the witness to continue with his testimony, leaving the defence with the opportunity to challenge the evidence during cross-examination.
Earlier in his testimony, Gurumnaan had alleged that a company identified in the proceedings as Source Computer was compelled to make payments to Emefiele before its contract fees were released.
The investigator also alleged that the EFCC uncovered arrangements through which Emefiele and individuals associated with him restricted ordinary Nigerians and businesses from accessing foreign exchange.
The defence is expected to challenge the prosecution’s evidence as proceedings continue.
The case was adjourned to Friday, November 13, 2026, for continuation of trial.
Source: TrackNews