An Ikeja Special Offences Court has admitted a certified copy of a Supreme Court judgment concerning properties linked to former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, in his ongoing trial over alleged financial misconduct involving $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion.
Justice Rahman Oshodi admitted the document as Exhibit L on Friday after dismissing objections raised by the defence teams.
Emefiele is standing trial on a 19-count charge involving allegations of unlawful gratification, corrupt demands and abuse of office. His co-defendant, Henry Omoile, is facing three counts relating to the alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts.
Judge limits the use of Supreme Court judgment
In his ruling, Justice Oshodi held that the certified Supreme Court decision qualified as a public document and was therefore admissible under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.
The judge rejected the argument that the document was incomplete because only the lead judgment had been presented before the trial court.
However, he made an important distinction regarding how the prosecution could use the document.
Oshodi explained that the judgment could only establish the decisions previously reached by the Supreme Court in the forfeiture proceedings. It could not be treated as proof of the criminal allegations against Emefiele or Omoile in the ongoing trial.
He stressed that previous court judgments are admitted to establish what was decided in those proceedings, rather than to automatically prove the truth of the evidence presented in them.
Defence challenges admissibility
The prosecution had tendered the certified judgment through an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) investigator, Alvan Gurumnaan.
However, Emefiele’s lead defence counsel, Ojo Olalekan, opposed its admission, questioning the composition of the Supreme Court panel that delivered the decision.
He argued that only four justices had signed the judgment, whereas Supreme Court cases were ordinarily determined by panels comprising five or seven justices.
Olalekan also maintained that the judgment arose from non-conviction-based forfeiture proceedings and should not be introduced as evidence in the criminal case.
Counsel to the second defendant, Adeyinka Kotoye, supported the objection, arguing that admitting the document could raise concerns about estoppel and the constitutional presumption of innocence.
He further questioned why the prosecution had introduced the judgment after the trial had already commenced.
EFCC defends the document
Responding to the objections, Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, argued that the judgment was a properly certified public document.
He relied on Sections 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act, which deal with public documents and the certification of copies.
Oyedepo maintained that the document satisfied the legal requirements for admission and should be accepted by the court.
Justice Oshodi ultimately agreed that the judgment was admissible, while restricting its evidential purpose to establishing the outcome of the earlier Supreme Court proceedings.
EFCC investigator faces cross-examination
Following the ruling, Gurumnaan continued his testimony under cross-examination by Emefiele’s defence team.
The investigator told the court that he personally obtained statements, examined bank records and coordinated other members of the EFCC investigation team.
He also confirmed that he had interviewed Zenith Bank Managing Director, Dr Ebenezer Onyeagwu, although he could not immediately remember whether a formal statement had been obtained from him.
Gurumnaan further disclosed that the investigation involved hundreds of interviews with officials of the CBN, commercial banks and other government institutions.
Trial adjourned until December 17
After the proceedings, Justice Oshodi adjourned the case until December 17, 2026, for the continuation of cross-examination.
The trial centres on allegations involving Emefiele’s conduct while serving as governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Both defendants remain entitled to the presumption of innocence until the charges against them are established in court.
