The ongoing trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Godwin Emefiele, took a fresh turn on Friday as a Lagos court accepted a Supreme Court judgment presented by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission as evidence.
Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, ruled that the document could be admitted, dismissing objections from lawyers representing Emefiele and his co-defendant, Henry Omoile.
The judge held that the certified judgment met the legal requirements for admitting public documents and confirmed that the defence had been served with a copy ahead of the hearing.
Emefiele is standing trial on 19 counts bordering on alleged abuse of office, corrupt demands and gratification involving transactions worth $4.5bn and N2.8bn. Omoile is facing three counts relating to alleged unlawful receipt of gifts.
In explaining his decision, Oshodi maintained that a properly certified Supreme Court judgment was admissible under the Evidence Act.
“A judgment of the Supreme Court is a public document. The only secondary evidence of a public document that the law permits is a certified true copy, and a certified true copy of a judgement of the Supreme Court is admissible in evidence.”
The defence had argued that the prosecution failed to include the judgment in its original proof of evidence and that submitting only the lead judgment, without the concurring opinions, made the document incomplete.
However, Oshodi disagreed, pointing to previous court records showing that the defendants had received the document before the proceedings.
“The requirement of service has been satisfied,” he held.
On whether the absence of concurring judgments affected its admissibility, the judge relied on an earlier Court of Appeal decision, Matthias v. Shiki and Others, which addressed a similar legal argument.
He also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Abacha and Others v. Fawehinmi (2000), which established the legal significance of a lead judgment.
“It is the leading judgement that is legal, that is, in legal circles, regarded as the judgment of the court,” he said.
Oshodi, however, stressed that admitting the document did not mean the court would rely on findings from the previous civil forfeiture proceedings to determine the defendants’ guilt in the criminal case.
He explained that the judgment would only serve to establish what was decided in the earlier case, not to use the evidence presented there against either defendant.
“It has been well settled that court judgement are only used when tendered in a trial to determine and confirm what was actually decided in the case, and not to use the evidence given in it for or against any of the parties therein.”
The judge subsequently admitted the document as Exhibit L, clarifying that it would not be used as evidence against or in favour of any party.
“The lead judgement does not make it incomplete or inadmissible, as was held in Matthias v. Shiki and Others,” Oshodi said.
Defence Challenges EFCC’s Evidence
Before the ruling, Emefiele’s counsel, Olekan Ojo, SAN, argued against admitting the judgment, insisting that findings from civil forfeiture proceedings should not be used to establish criminal offences.
He cited legal authorities, including the Privy Council decision in Hui Chi-Ming v. The Queen and the English case of Hunter v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, to support his argument.
Ojo maintained that the prosecution could not rely on findings from a separate civil case to prove allegations against his client.
Omoile’s lawyer, Adeyinka Kotoye, SAN, backed the objection, questioning why the judgment was being introduced after the criminal proceedings had already commenced.
He also argued that admitting the document could raise concerns about the defendants’ right to be presumed innocent and the principle of estoppel.
However, EFCC prosecutor, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, urged the court to accept the judgment, arguing that it was properly certified and satisfied the provisions of the Evidence Act.
He maintained that questions about how much importance should be attached to the document were matters for the final evaluation of evidence rather than grounds for rejecting it.
Investigator Faces Questions Over Zenith Bank Interview
After delivering the ruling, the court resumed the trial with the cross-examination of EFCC investigator Alvan Gurumnaan, who headed the 10-member team responsible for investigating the case.
Gurumnaan told the court that his duties included coordinating investigative activities, interviewing suspects, reviewing financial records and processing information gathered by his team.
Under questioning by Ojo, he confirmed that he personally interviewed former Zenith Bank Managing Director, Ebenezer Onyeagwu, during the investigation.
When asked whether the interview produced useful information, the investigator answered, “It did.”
However, he could not immediately confirm whether a written statement was obtained from the former bank chief after the meeting, although he acknowledged that taking statements after interviews was standard investigative practice.
The witness also identified several members of the investigation team and disclosed that their work initially took place in Abuja before they were moved to Lagos.
He further told the court that the team questioned hundreds of people, including Emefiele, Omoile, CBN employees, commercial bank officials and personnel from other government agencies.
Gurumnaan also confirmed that he personally interviewed Monday Osazuwa, the first prosecution witness, and took part in questioning another witness.
