The Lagos State Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja has admitted into evidence a series of extra-judicial statements allegedly made by former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Justice Rahman Oshodi delivered the ruling on Thursday, dismissing objections raised by Emefiele’s legal team over the admissibility of the statements.

The court held that a trial-within-trial was unnecessary, ruling that the statements did not qualify as confessional under Nigerian law.

INEC Battles Six Major Suits Ahead Of 2027 Elections

According to Justice Oshodi, a confessional statement must contain a clear and unequivocal admission of the offences alleged against the accused. He noted that none of the statements attributed to Emefiele amounted to an admission of guilt or acknowledgment of the facts in dispute.

Following the ruling, the court admitted as exhibits statements allegedly made by the former CBN governor on October 27, October 30, November 11, November 12 and November 13, 2023.

The trial was subsequently adjourned to October 6, 7 and 8, as well as November 11, 12 and 13, 2026, for the continuation of proceedings.

Emefiele is standing trial alongside Henry Omoile on a 19-count charge bordering on alleged abuse of office, receiving gratification, accepting gifts through agents, corruption and fraudulent property transactions involving approximately $4.5 billion and ₦2.8 billion.

Omoile is also facing a separate three-count charge for allegedly receiving unlawful gifts linked to transactions involving the Central Bank of Nigeria.

Both defendants have pleaded not guilty to all charges.

During the proceedings, Emefiele’s counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), urged the court to reject the statements, arguing that they were obtained through oppression and torture while his client was in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS).

However, the prosecution, led by Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), maintained that the statements were not confessional in nature and therefore did not require a trial-within-trial before being admitted into evidence.

Justice Oshodi agreed with the prosecution’s argument, ruling that the legal threshold for a confessional statement had not been met and allowing the documents to be tendered as part of the prosecution’s evidence in the ongoing trial.