An Ikeja Special Offences Court has fixed May 4 to rule on the admissibility of statements made by Henry Omoile, an associate of former Central Bank of Nigeria governor, Godwin Emefiele, in the ongoing criminal proceedings against him.
Omoile, who is standing trial alongside Emefiele, is challenging the circumstances under which he made statements to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, insisting they were not given voluntarily.
Emefiele is being prosecuted on a 19-count charge bordering on alleged abuse of office, gratification and corrupt practices tied to transactions valued at $4.5bn and N2.8bn. Omoile, in a separate but related charge, faces three counts over alleged unlawful acceptance of benefits in connection with dealings involving the apex bank.
Justice Rahman Oshodi adjourned for ruling after both the defence and prosecution adopted their final written submissions in the trial-within-trial aimed at determining the voluntariness of the statements.
Arguing for the defence, Omoile’s counsel, Adeyinka Kotoye (SAN), urged the court to reject the statements, citing the absence of video evidence of the interrogation process as a breach of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law.
He maintained that once the voluntariness of a statement is in dispute, proper recording of the process becomes essential, adding that his client had alleged he was pressured and induced with promises of release.
Counsel to Emefiele, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), supported the argument, contending that the law places the burden on the prosecution to prove that such statements were made freely.
He added that any confession obtained through coercion or inducement should be deemed inadmissible.
In response, prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), dismissed the objections as baseless, insisting that the statements were obtained in line with legal provisions and in the presence of the defendant’s lawyer.
He further argued that the content of the statements contradicted claims of coercion, noting that Omoile did not implicate Emefiele in any wrongdoing.
The court is expected to determine whether the disputed statements meet the legal threshold for admissibility before the substantive trial proceeds.
