Emefiele: EFCC Unable to Prove Case, Asks Court to Discharge Him from $6.23m Fraud Charge

• Appeal court reserves judgment in ex-CBN governor’s bid to disqualify trial judge

Alex Enumah in Abuja and Wale Igbintade in Lagos

A former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr Godwin Emefiele has asked a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to discharge and acquit him from the alleged $6.23 million and procurement fraud charge brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Emefiele predicated his call on the grounds that the evidences of witnesses called by the anti-graft agency as well as exhibits tendered did not link him to the charge against him.
The federal government is prosecuting Emefiele on a 20-count criminal charge bordering on breach of trust, forgery, obtaining by false pretence, conspiracy to commit forgery, procurement fraud, and conspiracy to commit a felony.
Besides, he is also accused of complicity in the fraudulent withdrawal of the sum of $6.23 million from the vault of the Abuja branch of the apex bank.
But Emefiele pleaded not guilty to the entire charge and also informed the court of his intention to file a no-case submission after the prosecution closed its case at the last sitting.
Arguing the no-case motion yesterday, his lead counsel, Mr Mathew Burkaa (SAN) observed that counts 1 to 14 of the charge relates with how Emefiele allegedly conferred unfair advantage on his close associates, including his wife, and in-law.
Burkaa submitted that none of the witnesses presented by the anti-graft agency was able to show how he benefited from the allegations or manipulated the Tender Board Committee to award contracts to two companies at the center of the charge.
According to the senior lawyer, the only thing the prosecution was able to show was that Emefiele as the head of the CBN issued approvals.
“There was nothing to show that he manipulated the committee. There was nothing to show that he told the Tenders Board of the CBN what to do.
“The EFCC evidence showed that the two companies named “April 1616 and Aichtekon executed the car supply contracts awarded them by CBN. So, the corruption would have been that they collected money and they did not do the work.
“The unfairness would have been that Emefiele manipulated the process of the contract award, lobbied to get them to have the contract,” he argued.
Arguing further, Burkaa said, the prosecution witnesses made it clear in black and white, that there is a reason why those companies were awarded the contracts because “They bidded less than other companies.”
While stating that the prosecution speculated that the companies were guided, he pointed out that it “could not show who guided them, in what way they were guided, what documents showed that they were guided, no, nobody documented.”
He noted that counts 15 to 20 were added to the charges when the case was already ongoing, adding “These counts focused on the $ 6.23 million withdrawn from CBN and alleged forgery of signatures and documents.
Burkaa noted that Boss Mustapha, a former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) had testified that both his signature and former President Muhammadu Buhari’s were forged. Emefiele also said during EFCC’s interrogation that his was forged.
Since there is a claim of three forged signatures, Burkaa wondered why Boss Mustapha and the late Buhari were not investigated.
He noted that a witness said they ought to have done that and the EFCC’s witnesses were shocked that they did not do that.
Opposing the no case submission, Rotimi Oyedepo, ( SAN)said he will set the record straight to prove why a no-case submission was unnecessary.
He noted that Emefiele was a public officer and he used his position to confer unfair advantage on Archetekon where his wife and brother in-law were listed as directors.
The contracts in count 1 to 14 did not go through the Tender Board Committee (TBC) despite a criteria that a contract of above the threshold of N10 million has to be scrutinised by the board.
“The committee was circumvented for reviewing the contract,” Oyedepo argued. This is the testimony of Pw 3 he added.
Similarly, April 1616 was guided to quote the in-house price depriving the other Nigerian contractors a fair chance, he stressed.
“That is not an honest mistake, that is an unfair advantage in the process.”
He said the public should be bothered about the $6.3 million withdrawn from CBN under Emefiele’s leadership, because it is a breach of trust.
He noted that Burkaa’s narration is that between February 8, 2023 to sometime in June 2023 when Emefiele was removed from office, he was not aware of the withdrawal and was singled out for persecution.
“The evidence before the court does not support that position. There are two critical documents used as the basis for the release of the money which Mr Mustapha testified were forged.
“The PW 15 said that there is a system that triggers a complaint to Emefiele while he was governor. Because there must be a naira cover for the withdrawal, and Mr Emefiele has to answer to this.
He did nothing till he left office, he said.
After hearing taking arguments for and against, the judge reserved his ruling on the no case submission to a date that would be communicated to parties.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal in Lagos has reserved judgment in an appeal by Emefiele, challenging a trial judge’s refusal to recuse himself over allegations that his ruling on an alleged $400,000 payment created an impression of judicial bias.

A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Biobele Georgewill, yesterday reserved judgment in the appeal after hearing arguments from counsel to the parties.

Other members of the panel are Justices Boloukuromo Ugo and Muslim Hassan.

Emefiele is asking the appellate court to set aside the February 26, 2025, ruling of Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, which dismissed his application seeking the judge’s withdrawal from his ongoing criminal trial.

Through his counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN) and Olawale Fapohunda,( SAN) the former CBN governor argued that Justice Oshodi prejudged a disputed allegation by permitting the prosecution to ask a leading question suggesting that the alleged $400,000 had been sufficiently established as having been received by him.

However, the EFCC, through its counsel, C.C. Okezie, urged the appellate court to dismiss the appeal, describing it as an abuse of court process.

Okezie asked the panel to examine the testimony of the prosecution’s seventh witness, PW7, as contained in the record of proceedings, and uphold the trial judge’s decision.

The court said the date for delivering its judgment would be communicated to the parties.

Before hearing the substantive appeal, the panel deemed properly filed and served Emefiele’s motion on notice, dated February 6, 2026, seeking to introduce additional records.

It also regularised the EFCC’s respondent’s brief through a motion dated January 21, 2026.

The dispute originated on February 24, 2025, during the continuation of Emefiele’s trial, when the prosecution was examining PW7.
According to Emefiele’s brief of argument, the witness had testified that one John Ayoh handed him $400,000.
During the examination-in-chief, prosecution counsel asked 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 question was leading.

In his ruling, Justice Oshodi acknowledged that the question was leading but allowed it under Section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which permits leading questions on introductory or undisputed matters and issues the court considers sufficiently proved.

The judge 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 applied for the judge to recuse himself, contending that the decision suggested that he had already formed a view on the disputed allegation that the former CBN governor received the money.
Justice Oshodi dismissed the recusal application on February 26, 2025, holding that the allegation of bias had not been substantiated.

Dissatisfied, Emefiele filed an appeal dated March 6, 2025, challenging the refusal to withdraw from the case.
In his brief of argument, Ojo contended that the trial judge’s reliance on the provision permitting leading questions on matters sufficiently proved amounted to prejudging an issue that should be determined only after the prosecution had presented its evidence and the defence had been given an opportunity to challenge 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 judge’s pronouncement could reasonably create the impression that the prosecution had already established that Emefiele received the $400,000, notwithstanding the defence’s right to challenge the witness’s testimony.

Ojo maintained that the right to a fair hearing under Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, includes the right to be tried by an impartial court.

Relying on judicial authorities, including 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 to hold that the judge’s remarks demonstrated bias or, at the very least, created a likelihood of bias.

He also faulted the trial court’s reliance on previous decisions concerning allegations of bias, arguing that they did not address the specific circumstances of a judge allegedly prejudging a substantive issue while ruling on an interlocutory application.

The EFCC, however, urged the appellate court to reject Emefiele’s arguments and uphold Justice Oshodi’s decision, maintaining that an examination of PW7’s testimony would demonstrate that the trial judge acted correctly.

The appeal stems from the criminal proceedings instituted against Emefiele under an amended information dated April 3, 2024.

The charges include allegations of accepting gratification, corrupt demand and receiving property allegedly obtained fraudulently under Sections 8, 10 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

Count 18 specifically alleged that Emefiele received $400,000.
He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.