Wale Igbintade
The Court of Appeal in Lagos has reserved judgment in an enchantment by former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, difficult a trial decide’s refusal to recuse himself over allegations that his ruling on an alleged $400,000 cost created an impression of judicial bias.
A 3-member panel of the Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Biobele Georgewill, on Tuesday reserved judgment within the enchantment after listening to arguments from counsel to the events.
Other members of the panel are Justices Boloukuromo Ugo and Muslim Hassan.
Emefiele is asking the appellate court docket to put aside the February 26, 2025, ruling of Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, which dismissed his software searching for the decide’s withdrawal from his ongoing felony trial.
Through his counsel, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, and Olawale Fapohunda, SAN, the previous CBN governor argued that Justice Oshodi prejudged a disputed allegation by allowing the prosecution to ask a number one query suggesting that the alleged $400,000 had been sufficiently established as having been acquired by him.
However, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), by means of its counsel, C.C. Okezie, urged the appellate court docket to dismiss the enchantment, describing it as an abuse of court docket course of.
Okezie requested the panel to look at the testimony of the prosecution’s seventh witness, PW7, as contained within the file of proceedings, and uphold the trial decide’s determination.
The court docket mentioned the date for delivering its judgment can be communicated to the events.
Before listening to the substantive enchantment, the panel deemed correctly filed and served Emefiele’s movement on discover, dated February 6, 2026, searching for to introduce extra data.
It additionally regularised the EFCC’s respondent’s temporary by means of a movement dated January 21, 2026.
The dispute originated on February 24, 2025, throughout the continuation of Emefiele’s trial, when the prosecution was inspecting PW7.
According to Emefiele’s temporary of argument, the witness had testified that one John Ayoh handed him $400,000.
During the examination-in-chief, prosecution counsel requested the witness: “Is it the same money that you now said you gave the Defendant in his office?”
Emefiele’s counsel objected, arguing that the query was main.
In his ruling, Justice Oshodi acknowledged that the query was main however allowed it below Section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which allows main questions on introductory or undisputed issues and points the court docket considers sufficiently proved.
The decide held: “Having considered the submissions, it is clear that the question put to PW7, is a leading question. However under section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, leading questions maybe allowed as to matters which the PW7, has sufficiently given. For this reason I will allow the question.”
Following the ruling, Emefiele’s counsel utilized for the decide to recuse himself, contending that the choice recommended that he had already shaped a view on the disputed allegation that the previous CBN governor acquired the cash.
Justice Oshodi dismissed the recusal software on February 26, 2025, holding that the allegation of bias had not been substantiated.
Dissatisfied, Emefiele filed an enchantment dated March 6, 2025, difficult the refusal to withdraw from the case.
In his temporary of argument, Ojo contended that the trial decide’s reliance on the availability allowing main questions on issues sufficiently proved amounted to prejudging a difficulty that needs to be decided solely after the prosecution had introduced its proof and the defence had been given a possibility to problem it.
He argued that the allegation remained disputed and that PW7 had not been cross-examined when the controversial ruling was delivered.
According to the appellant, the decide’s pronouncement might moderately create the impression that the prosecution had already established that Emefiele acquired the $400,000, however the defence’s proper to problem the witness’s testimony.
Ojo maintained that the fitting to a good listening to below Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, consists of the fitting to be tried by an neutral court docket.
Relying on judicial authorities, together with In Re Abdullahi (2018), A.I.C. Ltd v. Edo State Government (2016) and CIL Risk & Asset Management Ltd v. Ekiti State Government (2020), he urged the appellate court docket to maintain that the decide’s remarks demonstrated bias or, on the very least, created a chance of bias.
He additionally faulted the trial court docket’s reliance on earlier choices regarding allegations of bias, arguing that they didn’t tackle the precise circumstances of a decide allegedly prejudging a substantive challenge whereas ruling on an interlocutory software.
The EFCC, nevertheless, urged the appellate court docket to reject Emefiele’s arguments and uphold Justice Oshodi’s determination, sustaining that an examination of PW7’s testimony would reveal that the trial decide acted accurately.
The enchantment stems from the felony proceedings instituted in opposition to Emefiele below an amended data dated April 3, 2024.
The costs embody allegations of accepting gratification, corrupt demand and receiving property allegedly obtained fraudulently below Sections 8, 10 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
Count 18 particularly alleged that Emefiele acquired $400,000.
He has pleaded not responsible to all the fees.
