Court To Rule May 4 On Admissibility Of Emefiele’s Co-defendant’s Statement

Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja will on May 4 decide whether to admit an extrajudicial statement made by Henry Omoile, the second defendant, in the ongoing trial of former Central Bank Governor Godwin Emefiele.

Judge Oshodi fixed the date for ruling after the defence and prosecution adopted their written arguments to determine the voluntariness of Omoile’s extrajudicial statement to the police.

Emefiele was arraigned before the court alongside Omoile on allegations of accepting gratification, accepting gifts through agents, corruption, and fraudulent property receipts.

The anti-graft agency also accused the defendant of conferring a corrupt advantage on his associates, in contravention of the Corrupt Practices Act 2000.

They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Justice Rahman Oshodi had previously adjourned proceedings for the adoption of final written addresses after the evidence, including Omoile’s cross-examination in the trial-within-trial, was concluded.

While moving Omoile’s final address, Adeyinka Kotoye (SAN) argued that the main issue is whether Omoile’s statement was made voluntarily.

He stated that the process of obtaining the statement did not follow the law, particularly Sections 9(3) and (4) of the ACJL and Sections 17(1) and (2) of the ACJA.

He emphasised that video recordings of the interrogation are crucial when voluntariness is contested.

Kotoye also argued that the prosecution failed to provide independent evidence to support the confession and questioned the lawyer’s presence during the recording, alleging that he was prevented from performing his duty effectively.

Also, Emefiele’s lawyer, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), urged the court to decide in favour of the defence if there is any doubt about the voluntariness of the statement.

He cited Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act, which states that statements obtained through oppression, inducement, or improper means are inadmissible.

In his response, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the Federal Ministry of Justice, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the defence’s arguments.

Oyedepo stated that the first defendant’s counsel had no reason to challenge the second defendant’s statement, having not objected when it was first presented, and called the subsequent challenge an abuse of court process.

He explained that the statement was obtained following the provisions of the ACJA, and although not video-recorded, it was made in the presence of the second defendant’s lawyer.

He argued that the statement’s content negates claims of coercion, as the second defendant refused to implicate Godwin Emefiele and appeared to act independently, not under duress.

Oyedepo also submitted that the defendant denied all charges, suggesting the statement was not coerced or induced.

Oyedepo urged the court to find the statement voluntary and admissible.

He dismissed allegations of intimidation, noting that the statement was taken with witnesses present, that the defendant was properly cautioned, and that the defendant signed the cautionary form voluntarily.