At the ongoing $4.5 billion fraud trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele, the lawyer for his co‑defendant, Henry Omoile, on Thursday accused the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of attempting to pressure his client into providing incriminating evidence against Emefiele.
The allegation came during a trial‑within‑trial at the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, where the defence is contesting the voluntariness of statements attributed to Omoile.
Emefiele and Omoile are standing trial on multiple counts including alleged acceptance of gratification, receipt of gifts through intermediaries, corruption and fraudulent receipt of property, charges the EFCC filed in late 2023. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty to all counts before Justice Rahman Oshodi’s court.
The trial‑within‑trial was ordered after the defence challenged whether Omoile’s extra‑judicial statements to the EFCC were made voluntarily and therefore admissible. This phase of proceedings is critical because the statements form a significant part of the prosecution’s evidence against Emefiele and his co‑accused.
Counsel to Omoile, Mr. Nnamdi Offial, told the court that EFCC investigators repeatedly told his client that cooperation — including implicating Emefiele — could lead to promises such as bail and the possibility of not being charged.
He said the interrogations were conducted in a question‑and‑answer format in which the defendant’s answers had to align with what interrogators wanted before being allowed to record them. Many responses were excised or rejected because they did not fit the investigative team’s expectations, Offial claimed.
Offial also told the judge that on certain occasions he was temporarily prevented from assisting Omoile during the sessions after raising objections to the manner of questioning.
The defence lawyer said these dynamics raised serious concerns about whether the statements should be admitted as voluntary and credible in court.
The prosecution has maintained that Omoile’s statements were given freely, and the trial judge is currently hearing arguments on the matter before determining whether the statements will be admitted as evidence.
The allegation amplifies debate about investigative conduct in high‑profile corruption cases in Nigeria and the balance between law enforcement zeal and the rights of suspects.
If the court finds that the statements were made under duress or inducement, it could significantly weaken the prosecution’s case against Emefiele and Omoile, potentially affecting the trajectory of the trial.
For anti‑graft advocacy groups, such claims may prompt calls for clearer safeguards during interrogations to ensure that evidence admitted in court is obtained without coercion and upholds legal standards of fairness.
Conversely, if the court upholds the statements’ admissibility, it could reinforce prosecutorial confidence in the EFCC’s investigation methodology.
The defence’s allegation that the EFCC pressured a co‑defendant to implicate former CBN Governor Godwin Emefiele highlights the contested nature of evidence in high‑stakes corruption trials in Nigeria.
As the trial‑within‑trial continues, its outcome will shape not only the evidence landscape in this case but also broader perceptions of investigative practices in politically sensitive prosecutions.
