Appeal Court Reserves Judgment In Emefiele’s Bid To Disqualify Judge

The Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal on Tuesday reserved judgment on an enchantment filed by former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, who seeks the removing of the trial decide dealing with his felony case over an alleged prejudgment of a disputed $400,000 cost.

A 3-member panel led by Justice Biobele Georgewill, reserved judgment to a date which can be communicated to events, after listening to arguments from Emefiele’s legal professionals and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Emefiele is difficult Justice Rahman Oshodi’s refusal to recuse himself from the trial on the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja as a result of the decide’s dealing with of a query put by the prosecution created an inexpensive apprehension of bias.

Read Also: Depreciation: Oshiomhole Blames Ex-CBN Gov Emefiele For Indiscriminate Printing Of Naira

The former CBN boss, by means of his lawyer, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), urged the appellate courtroom to put aside the trial decide’s February 26, 2025 ruling that dismissed his recusal software.

Emefiele was arraigned earlier than Justice Oshodi alongside Henry Omoile by the EFCC on allegations of accepting gratification, accepting items by means of brokers, corruption, and fraudulent property receipts.

The anti-graft company additionally accused the defendant of conferring a corrupt benefit on his associates, in contravention of the Corrupt Practices Act 2000.

They, nonetheless, pleaded not responsible to the cost.

The enchantment is predicated on a ruling delivered on February 24, 2025, throughout the examination of the prosecution’s seventh witness, PW7, about an alleged $400,000 cost stated to have been obtained by Emefiele.

According to Emefiele’s transient of argument, PW7 testified that one John Ayoh handed him $400,000 earlier than the prosecution requested: “Is it the same money that you now said you gave the Defendant in his office?”

Emefiele’s counsel objected that the query was main and recommended that the disputed cost had already been established.

Justice Oshodi acknowledged that the query was main however allowed it underneath Section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011.

The provision permits main questions on introductory or undisputed issues, in addition to points that the courtroom considers sufficiently proved.

The decide dominated that the query could possibly be allowed as a result of the witness had testified sufficiently on the matter.

After the ruling, Emefiele’s legal professionals utilized for the decide to withdraw from the case.

They argued that his determination recommended he had fashioned a view on the allegation earlier than the prosecution accomplished its proof and the defence had an opportunity to problem the witness.

Justice Oshodi dismissed the applying on February 26, 2025, discovering that the allegation of bias was unsubstantiated.

Emefiele later filed an enchantment dated March 6, 2025, asking the Court of Appeal to overturn that call.

Appearing earlier than the appellate courtroom, Ojo argued that the trial decide’s reliance on the availability allowing main questions on issues sufficiently proved amounted to prejudgment of a fabric situation within the felony trial.

He stated the alleged receipt of the $400,000 remained disputed and that PW7 had not been cross-examined when the controversial ruling was delivered.

According to the appellant, the decide’s remarks may moderately create the impression that the prosecution had already established that Emefiele obtained the cash, elevating considerations concerning the impartiality required in felony proceedings.

Ojo argued that the precise to a good listening to underneath Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, consists of the precise to be tried by an neutral courtroom.

Citing judicial selections, together with A.I.C. Ltd v. Edo State Government (2016) and CIL Risk & Asset Management Ltd v. Ekiti State Government (2020), he urged the appellate courtroom to search out that the trial decide’s conduct confirmed bias or created a chance of bias.

He additionally criticised the trial courtroom’s reliance on earlier judicial selections regarding allegations of bias, arguing that they didn’t adequately deal with a decide allegedly expressing a view on a disputed substantive situation whereas deciding an interlocutory matter.

The EFCC, by means of its counsel, Cyril Okezie, urged the appellate courtroom to dismiss the enchantment, describing it as an abuse of courtroom course of.

Okezie requested the panel to evaluate PW7’s testimony within the report of proceedings, arguing that it could present Justice Oshodi acted correctly in permitting the query.