Ikeja: An Ikeja Special Offences Court has fixed May 4 for a ruling in a trial-within-trial involving Henry Omoile, a co-defendant with Godwin Emefiele, the former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor.
Omoile disputes the voluntariness of two statements he gave to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the ongoing Emefiele trial for alleged abuse of office.
Emefiele is standing trial on 19 counts bordering on alleged gratification, corrupt demands, and abuse of office linked to large financial transactions.
Omoile, his associate, faces three counts of unlawful acceptance of gifts while acting as an agent in transactions tied to the CBN.
The charges involve alleged dealings totalling 4.5 billion dollars and N2.8 billion, which prosecutors said reflect serious breaches of trust and procedure.
On Friday, Justice Rahman Oshodi adjourned the case for a ruling. This followed the parties’ adoption of final written addresses in the trial within the trial.
Earlier, Omoile’s counsel, Mr Adeyinka Kotoye (SAN), urged the court to discountenance the prosecution’s submissions.
Kotoye argued that a major missing link was the lack of video recording for the second defendant while making statements to the EFCC.
He contended that the process did not comply with Sections 9(3) and (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL), which require that any statement made by a suspect in custody must be recorded electronically or in writing in the presence of legal counsel, to ensure the voluntariness of the statement.
He also cited Sections 17(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), which specify that confessional statements must be made voluntarily and, where practicable, recorded electronically.
He said that when voluntariness is contested, video recording is crucial.
Kotoye relied on Supreme Court precedent and argued that video evidence was the most reliable means of verifying compliance with due process.
He said the second defendant testified that EFCC operatives forced him to make two statements in exchange for his freedom. “The prosecution must present the video to show due process,” Kotoye said.
Emefiele’s lead counsel, Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN), aligned with Kotoye and urged the court to reject the prosecution’s submissions.
Ojo adopted his written address dated April 16. He relied on its contents.
He cited Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act. This section makes inadmissible statements obtained by oppression, inducement, or improper means.
Ojo argued that once voluntariness is challenged, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove the statement was freely made.
He maintained that the prosecution did not meet this burden and that the circumstances cast doubt on the credibility of its case. He said only voluntary confessions are admissible under established law.ies.
He added that modern criminal procedure recognised safeguards such as video recordings.
Ojo also criticised the prosecution for not challenging claims of trauma, inducement, and lack of legal representation.
He argued that such omissions were fatal to the prosecution’s case.
He emphasised that no valid confession or admissible evidence had been presented against Omoile.
He said the burden of proof rested on the prosecution, which must prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
EFCC counsel, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), urged the court to reject the defence submissions, describing them as an abuse of process.
Oyedepo, Director of Public Prosecutions, said the statements of the second defendant were voluntarily made.
He argued that counsel to the first defendant lacked a basis to challenge admissibility after initially declining objection when the statements were tendered.
He described the latter challenge as an abuse of the court process.
He said the statements were obtained in substantial compliance with the ACJA.
He added that although not video-recorded, the statements were made in the second defendant’s counsel’s presence.
Oyedepo said the statements’ contents contradicted the defence’s coercion claim.
He said the second defendant expressly refused to implicate Emefiele in any wrongdoing. He claimed this refusal showed the statements were not made under duress.ncHe added the statements were made in lawyer Mr. Nnamdi Offia’s presence.fia.
He said, “What is done in the open will not be afraid of light.”
He said under cross-examination, the second defendant admitted he did not confess to any offence.
Oyedepo also faulted the authorities cited by the defence, arguing they were inapplicable under Lagos State lawHe urged the court to admit the extra-judicial statements as evidence.nce.
The trial-within-trial was set up to determine if Omoile’s statements to EFCC investigators were voluntary.
Omoile had alleged on Jan. 15 that he was coerced, threatened and promised freedom if he complied with EFCC directives.
He told the court that he eventually made false statements after being promised release if he cooperated.
