Former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele has suffered another setback in his attempt to remove the judge handling his criminal trial over an alleged $400,000 payment, as the Court of Appeal in Lagos has reserved judgment in his appeal challenging the judge’s refusal to recuse himself.
A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Biobele Georgewill, reserved judgment on Tuesday after hearing arguments from lawyers representing Emefiele and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The court is expected to communicate the date for delivering its decision to the parties.
Emefiele is asking the appellate court to overturn the February 26, 2025, ruling of Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, who dismissed his application seeking to withdraw from the case over allegations of bias.
The former CBN governor, through his lawyers, Olalekan Ojo (SAN) and Olawale Fapohunda (SAN), argued that the trial judge’s handling of a question put to a prosecution witness raised concerns about his impartiality.
They maintained that the judge’s decision to allow the question created the impression that he had already reached a conclusion on the disputed allegation that Emefiele received $400,000.
However, the EFCC opposed the appeal and urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss it.
The commission, represented by C.C. Okezie, described the appeal as an abuse of court process and asked the panel to uphold the trial court’s decision.
During the proceedings, Okezie drew the court’s attention to the evidence given by the prosecution’s seventh witness, identified as PW7, and urged the justices to examine the record of proceedings before reaching a decision.
Before hearing the substantive arguments, the appellate court also addressed applications filed by both parties.
It deemed properly filed and served Emefiele’s motion on notice, dated February 6, 2026, seeking to introduce additional records.
The court equally regularised the EFCC’s respondent’s brief through a motion dated January 21, 2026.
The appeal centres on a courtroom exchange that took place on February 24, 2025, during the prosecution’s examination of PW7 in the criminal trial.
According to Emefiele’s brief of argument, the witness had testified that one John Ayoh handed him $400,000. During further questioning, the prosecution asked the witness, “Is it the same money that you now said you gave the defendant in his office?”
Emefiele’s defence team immediately objected, arguing that the question was leading and could influence the witness’s response on a disputed issue.
Justice Oshodi acknowledged that the question was indeed a leading one.
However, he allowed it under Section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which permits leading questions on introductory or undisputed matters and issues the court considers sufficiently proved.
In explaining his decision, the judge said, “Having considered the submissions, it is clear that the question put to PW7 is a leading question. However, under section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, leading questions may be allowed as to matters which the PW7 has sufficiently given. For this reason, I will allow the question.”
The ruling prompted Emefiele’s lawyers to apply for the judge’s recusal, arguing that his remarks suggested he had already formed an opinion on whether their client received the disputed money.
The defence maintained that the allegation was still contested and that the witness had not been cross-examined when the court made the ruling.
According to the lawyers, allowing the question on the basis that the witness had sufficiently established the relevant matter could give the impression that the prosecution’s allegation had already been accepted by the court.
Justice Oshodi rejected the application on February 26, 2025, holding that Emefiele had not established sufficient grounds to justify the allegation of bias.
Dissatisfied with that decision, the former CBN governor filed an appeal dated March 6, 2025, asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the ruling and determine whether the trial judge should continue handling the case.
In his argument before the appellate court, Ojo maintained that the trial judge’s reliance on Section 221(3) of the Evidence Act went beyond the proper consideration of an objection to a leading question.
He argued that the provision should not have been used in a way that could suggest the disputed allegation had already been established before the prosecution completed its case and the defence had an opportunity to challenge the evidence.
The defence further argued that the issue was not simply whether the trial judge had the legal power to permit a leading question.
Rather, it was whether the judge’s explanation for allowing it could reasonably create an impression that he had prejudged a central issue in the trial.
Ojo told the appellate court that the right to a fair hearing under Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, includes the right of an accused person to be tried by an impartial court.
He urged the panel to consider whether the judge’s remarks raised a reasonable concern about the fairness of the proceedings.
To support the argument, Emefiele’s counsel cited previous judicial decisions, including In Re Abdullahi (2018), A.I.C. Ltd v. Edo State Government (2016) and CIL Risk & Asset Management Ltd v. Ekiti State Government (2020).
He asked the court to find that the circumstances surrounding the ruling either demonstrated bias or created a likelihood of bias sufficient to warrant the judge’s withdrawal.
The defence also challenged the trial court’s reliance on earlier decisions dealing with allegations of judicial bias.
Ojo argued that those authorities did not adequately address the specific circumstances of a case in which a judge was accused of prejudging a substantive issue while ruling on an interlocutory application.
The EFCC, however, maintained that the trial judge acted within the law and that his decision to permit the question did not establish that he had reached a final conclusion on the allegation against Emefiele.
The commission urged the appellate court to reject the appeal and allow the criminal proceedings to continue before Justice Oshodi.
The Court of Appeal has yet to announce a date for its judgment. Both Emefiele’s defence team and the EFCC will have to await the panel’s decision on whether the trial should continue before Justice Oshodi or whether the circumstances justify a change of judge.