• Says allegations were absent from prosecution’s proof of evidence
Wale Igbintade
The defence team of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, yesterday accused the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of attempting to introduce fresh evidence outside the proof of evidence served on the defendants, describing the move as an attempt to subject them to a trial by ambush.
The defence specifically challenged evidence concerning the recovery of more than $2 million from a lawyer’s office, as well as allegations linking the lawyer to Emefiele and certain companies.
It argued that these allegations were not contained in the prosecution’s proof of evidence and could not validly be introduced through the testimony of a prosecution witness without the filing and service of additional proof of evidence.
The defence maintained that allowing the prosecution to introduce such evidence without prior disclosure would prejudice the defendants’ ability to prepare their case and undermine their constitutional right to a fair hearing.
The defence argued that allegations concerning the recovery of more than $2 million from a lawyer’s office, the lawyer’s alleged links to Emefiele and certain companies were not contained in the prosecution’s proof of evidence.
It maintained that introducing such matters through the testimony of a prosecution witness, without filing and serving additional proof of evidence, would undermine the defendants’ right to a fair hearing.
The objection was raised during the continuation of Emefiele’s trial alongside his co-defendant, Henry Omoile, before the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, presided over by Justice Rahman Oshodi.
The Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), appeared for the prosecution, while Olalekan Ojo (SAN) represented Emefiele, the first defendant, and Kazeem Gbadamosi (SAN) appeared for Omoile, the second defendant.
The dispute arose during the testimony of the prosecution’s eighth witness, an EFCC investigator, Alvan Gurumnaan, who was recounting findings from the commission’s investigation into allegations of financial impropriety and gratification involving the former CBN governor.
Ojo objected when the witness began giving evidence about the alleged recovery of more than $2 million from a lawyer’s office and the lawyer’s purported relationship with Emefiele and some companies.
The senior advocate argued that the allegations and details being introduced were not contained in the proof of evidence served on the defendants.
He maintained that the prosecution could not introduce materially new facts through a witness without first filing and serving additional proof of evidence on the defence.
Describing the development as trial by ambush, Ojo argued that the defendants would be unfairly taken by surprise if the prosecution were allowed to introduce allegations that had not been disclosed in its case materials.
He insisted that the prosecution was bound by its disclosed evidence and that the defendants were entitled to know the case they were required to answer.
In response, Oyedepo argued that the witness, as an investigator, was entitled to testify about the findings of the EFCC investigation.
The prosecution also maintained that the properties mentioned by the witness had featured in previous judicial proceedings in which Emefiele participated, and could not therefore reasonably be described as matters unknown to him.
Gurumnaan had told the court that the EFCC recovered more than $2 million from the office of a lawyer allegedly connected to Emefiele, whom the witness described as acting as a front for the former CBN governor.
The investigator further alleged that the lawyer served as secretary to several companies linked to the investigation.
He also gave evidence concerning properties allegedly associated with Emefiele, including twin duplexes in Lekki Phase 1 and two mansions on Queen’s Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos.
According to the witness, the investigation uncovered assets which he considered to be beyond what Emefiele could legitimately have acquired from his known income.
He also referred to previous forfeiture proceedings involving some of the properties and estimated their value at hundreds of billions of naira.
The witness, however, acknowledged that Emefiele denied the allegations in his extra-judicial statement to the EFCC.
The defence also challenged the relevance of the investigator’s testimony concerning foreign exchange transactions, arguing that the evidence related to counts that were no longer before the court.
Ojo reminded the court that counts one to four, which concerned foreign exchange, had earlier been struck out.
He argued that allowing the prosecution to continue presenting evidence on those matters could prejudice the defendants and create an impression of wrongdoing in respect of allegations that were no longer part of the surviving charges.
He urged the court to confine the witness’s testimony to matters relevant to the charges still pending against the defendants.
Oyedepo opposed the objection, describing it as premature.
He argued that the evidence was connected to the prosecution’s allegations of gratification and should be considered in the context of the remaining counts.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Oshodi directed the witness to continue with his testimony, leaving the defence with the opportunity to challenge the evidence during cross-examination.
Earlier in his testimony, Gurumnaan alleged that a company identified in the proceedings as Source Computer was compelled to make payments to Emefiele before its contract fees were released.
The investigator further alleged that the EFCC uncovered arrangements through which Emefiele and persons associated with him restricted ordinary Nigerians and businesses from accessing foreign exchange.
The defence is expected to challenge the prosecution’s evidence as the trial progresses.
The case continues today (Friday, November 13, 2026) for continuation of trial.