Emefiele Accuses Judge of Bias, Unjust Handling of Questions in Ongoing Trial

•A judge can be biased, either consciously or unconsciously, defence lawyer tells court

Wale Igbintade

Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr. Godwin Emefiele, has requested the recusal of Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Special Offences Court in Lagos, citing alleged bias in the ongoing trial.

At the resumed trial yesterday, Emefiele’s lawyer, Olalekan Ojo, who is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), accused the trial judge of permitting a leading question, which the defense had previously objected to.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had charged Emefiele with accepting bribes and making corrupt demands while in office.

The EFCC had initially filed 22 charges against Emefiele and co-defendant Henry Omoile.

Emefiele faces charges of abuse of office, accepting gratification, and corrupt demands, while Omoile was charged with three counts related to the unlawful acceptance of gifts by an agent.

Both defendants pleaded not guilty, and the trial proceeded.

During the trial, prosecution counsel Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, continued presenting evidence.

Leading the seventh prosecution witness, Mr. John Adetola, Oyedepo reminded the witness of his earlier testimony, in which he stated that he had received $400,000 from John Ayoh and handed it over to Emefiele at his office.

Oyedepo then asked the witness to confirm a WhatsApp message, allegedly printed from Adetola’s phone by the EFCC investigators .

The defence objected, arguing that the document was only meant for identification and not an official exhibit. also , according to Ojo, OYEDEPO PW7 had earlier told the court that he collected the sum of $500,000 from John AYOH and handed it over to the 1st defendant. OYEDEPO further asked him “… was it $400,00 that you collected from Ayoh that was handed to the 1st defendant defendant? On his part Ojo objected to the question because it a leading question and urged the court not to allow it. The judge in its ruling allowed the question because, according to him, a leading question relates to matters that are introductory or undisputed or which have, in the opinion of the court been already sufficiently proved and allowed the question. The implication of allowing the question is that the court has formed the opinion that the prosecution had sufficiently proved that PW7 accepted none and handed it over to the defendant.

Justice Oshodi overruled the objection, allowing the witness to read from the document, relying on Section 221 (3) of the Evidence Act, which permits leading questions regarding introductory facts, undisputed facts, or facts already proven.

In response, Emefiele’s lawyer, Olalekan Ojo, argued that the judge’s ruling prematurely confirmed the $400,000 transaction between Adetola and Emefiele, making it impossible for the defence to cross-examine the witness fairly.

As a result, Lekan Ojo requested that Justice Oshodi recuse himself from further hearings.

Ojo, along with Omoile’s counsel, Kazeem Gbadamosi, SAN, asked the judge to withdraw on grounds of bias.

They also declined to cross-examine the witness, submitting an oral application for the judge’s recusal.

Ojo stated, “A judge can be either consciously or unconsciously biased… and that this present case is a matter of being unconsciously biased against the defendant. At this stage, I urge the court to recuse itself.” Lekan Ojo further cited the case of the State Vs Major Hamza Mustapha and others , where , when the judge was requested to allow defendants to seat at the duck he replied as follows “ .. I don’t allow criminals to seat in my court “ The counsel to the defendants in that case quickly told the court that the court had already adjudged the defendant to be guilty and urged the court to recuse itself on grounds of bias. Honourable Justice Christopher Segun honourably withdrew from the case because he admitted that the legal counsel to the defendants was correct.

In response, Oyedepo opposed the defence’s application and argued that the court had ruled multiple times against the prosecution without bias.

He accused the defence of using delay tactics and urged the court to disregard the recusal request.

Earlier in the proceedings, Ojo informed the court of an application seeking permission for Emefiele to appeal a ruling made on January 8, 2025, challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

Justice Oshodi adjourned the case to February 26, 2025, to rule on whether he would recuse himself from further hearings.

During his trial, Emefiele had challenged the court’s jurisdiction over some of the charges, arguing that he could not be tried in any State High Court for alleged offences brought by the EFCC.

In his application, Emefiele claimed that several of the 26 charges, particularly counts 1-4, were unconstitutional and lacked legal basis.

He requested the court to dismiss the counts, arguing that the alleged offences occurred outside the court’s jurisdiction.

But, ruling on the application, Justice Oshodi had determined that the allocation of foreign exchange without bidding, as described in Counts 1-4, was not punishable under the law.

The court ruled that, “the allocation of foreign exchange without justification is not defined as an offence in any written law,” and, as a result, the objection to these counts was upheld, leading to their dismissal.

However, the court upheld its territorial jurisdiction over Counts 8-26, rejecting Emefiele’s objection.

Justice Oshodi affirmed that the EFCC had established a sufficient territorial connection for the charges, allowing the trial to proceed.

The court reiterated, “The allocation of foreign exchange without justification is not defined as an offence in any written law.”