Emefiele: Judge Says Supreme Court Forfeiture Judgement Not Proof of Criminal Guilt

.Admits apex court ruling in evidence, limits its use to establishing what was decided

Wale Igbintade

Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, has clarified that a Supreme Court judgement arising from non-conviction-based asset forfeiture proceedings cannot be used as proof of the criminal allegations against former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele.

The judge, while admitting a certified true copy of the apex court’s judgement in evidence, emphasised that its purpose was strictly limited to establishing and confirming what was actually decided in the earlier forfeiture proceedings, rather than proving the facts or criminal allegations in the ongoing trial.

The clarification came as the court overruled objections by the defence teams of Emefiele and his co-defendant, Henry Omoile, to the admissibility of the judgement in their trial over alleged gratification, corrupt demands and abuse of office involving financial transactions estimated at $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion.

Emefiele is facing a 19-count charge, while Omoile is answering a three-count charge bordering on allegedly receiving unlawful gifts linked to transactions involving the apex bank. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty.

The Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), who led the prosecution, had sought to tender the certified true copy of the Supreme Court judgement through the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) eighth prosecution witness, Alvan Gurumnaan.

However, lead counsel to Emefiele, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), objected to its admissibility, arguing that the prosecution was attempting to introduce a judgement arising from civil forfeiture proceedings into a criminal trial.

Ojo contended that non-conviction-based asset forfeiture proceedings were civil in nature and operated in rem, meaning they concerned the property in question rather than determining the criminal culpability of any individual.

Relying on several judicial authorities, including Mendes General Services Limited v. EFCC (2024), Marhaba Event Place Limited v. EFCC (2026), Hui Chi-Ming v. The Queen and Hunter v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, the senior lawyer argued that such proceedings could neither create criminal offences nor establish the guilt of an accused person.

He also cited Sections 63 and 64 of the Evidence Act in support of his objection, maintaining that the forfeiture judgement could not be deployed to prove any ingredient of the offences for which his client was being prosecuted.

Ojo further challenged the prosecution’s decision to tender only the lead judgement of the Supreme Court, arguing that what was presented was the judgement of a single Justice rather than the complete decision of the five- or seven-member panel that heard the appeal.

Counsel to the second defendant, A.M. Kotoye (SAN), alongside Kazeem Gbadamosi (SAN), aligned with Ojo’s submissions and urged the court to reject the document.

Kotoye additionally argued that the judgement was obtained after the commencement of the criminal trial and was not originally included in the proof of evidence, thereby raising questions of compliance with Section 379(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

He also invoked the doctrine of issue estoppel under Section 174 of the Evidence Act, contending that the Supreme Court had already determined that no nexus or interest had been established between the defendant and the properties in question.

The defence further argued that admitting the document could prejudice the defendants and undermine their constitutional presumption of innocence.

Responding, Oyedepo urged the court to dismiss the objections, insisting that the certified true copy of the Supreme Court judgement qualified as a public document under Sections 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act.

He maintained that the defence’s objections concerned the weight and probative value to be attached to the judgement rather than its admissibility.

The prosecution also argued that the defendants had been served with the document before the sitting and that the doctrine of issue estoppel did not apply to criminal proceedings in the manner suggested by the defence.

In his ruling, Justice Oshodi held that a certified true copy of a Supreme Court judgement was a public document admissible in evidence.

On the defence’s objection regarding compliance with the ACJA, the judge observed that the court’s records showed that the defendants had been served with the judgement at an earlier sitting, thereby satisfying the statutory notice requirements.

Addressing the argument that only the lead judgement had been tendered, Oshodi relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Matthias v. Shagari & Ors (2021) and the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Abacha & Ors v. Fawehinmi (2000).

He held that the leading judgement was regarded as the judgment of the court, particularly where no conflict with the concurring opinions had been alleged.

The judge, however, clarified the limited purpose for which the document could be used, citing David Itauma v. Friday Jacinta Akpe-Ime (2000).

According to him, a judgement tendered in subsequent proceedings is admitted to establish what was decided in the earlier case and not as evidence of the facts or against the parties in the subsequent trial.

Consequently, he overruled the defence objections and admitted the Supreme Court judgement as an exhibit.

Following the ruling, proceedings shifted to the cross-examination of Gurumnaan, an EFCC investigator who disclosed that he joined the commission in February 2008 after being called to the Nigerian Bar in 2006.

The witness said he coordinated a 10-man Special Operations Team that investigated the allegations against Emefiele.

He explained that the investigation initially commenced in Abuja but was subsequently relocated to Lagos following a management decision, owing to the concentration of commercial banks, witnesses and properties connected with the investigation in the state.

According to him, while the Abuja team continued investigating allegations surrounding the federal government’s Anchor Borrowers’ Programme, the Lagos team concentrated on procurement fraud, abuse of office and related financial transactions.

Under cross-examination, Gurumnaan said his responsibilities included coordinating the investigators, analysing bank statements, signing investigative letters and personally interviewing suspects and witnesses.

He disclosed that he personally participated in interviews involving the then Managing Director of Zenith Bank, whom he recalled as Mr. Ebenezer, as well as some executive directors of the bank.

However, when questioned about whether a formal written statement was obtained from the former bank chief following the interview conducted in late 2023 or early 2024, the witness said he could not immediately recall.

He explained that the commission’s standard investigative practice required written statements to be obtained whenever useful information was elicited during interviews.

The development prompted the defence to request an adjournment to enable the witness to consult his investigation diary and other relevant records to refresh his memory.

Defence counsel explained that the issue was foundational to a structured line of approximately 96 questions prepared for the cross-examination.

The prosecution opposed an immediate adjournment, urging the court to allow the defence to proceed with other questions in the meantime.

Intervening, Justice Oshodi declined to suspend the cross-examination immediately, directing the defence to utilise the remaining time to ask questions that did not depend on the Zenith Bank records before the matter was adjourned.

During further questioning, Gurumnaan identified members of the Lagos investigative team, including Madi Abubakar, Moses Otitoju, Vincent Sunday, David Jaiyeoba, Michelle Atting, Aziz Ajibotosho, Nanlong and Musa Idi.

He also confirmed his participation in interviews involving several prosecution witnesses and other individuals connected with the investigation, including Monday Osazuwa (PW1), John Ayoh (PW3) and Mrs Ifeoma (PW6), as well as John Nadinla, Onye Jewah and John Oga.

Justice Oshodi subsequently adjourned the matter to December 17 and 18 for continuation of the witness’s cross-examination.