Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
Proceedings in the high-profile corruption trial involving former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Godwin Emefiele, took a notable turn on Thursday as counsel to his co-defendant, Henry Omoile, told the court that his client was never harassed by operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission during interrogation. The statement, made under cross-examination, appeared to contradict earlier claims of intimidation and coercion raised by the defence and added a fresh layer of complexity to the ongoing case.
The disclosure was made before Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, during a resumed hearing on January 15, 2026. Omoile’s lawyer, E.N. Offial, testified in the trial-within-trial convened to determine whether statements allegedly made by Omoile to the EFCC were given voluntarily. Such proceedings are a routine judicial mechanism used when the admissibility of confessional statements is challenged on grounds of coercion or inducement.
Emefiele, who served as governor of the apex bank for nearly a decade, is facing a 19-count charge brought by the EFCC. The charges border on allegations of receiving gratification and making corrupt demands during his tenure, with the prosecution accusing him of abusing his office in connection with transactions allegedly linked to a staggering sum of $4.5 billion. He has consistently denied all accusations and pleaded not guilty to every count.
Omoile, identified by the prosecution as an associate of the former CBN governor, is charged separately on three counts. These relate to the alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts while acting as an agent, offences which the EFCC argues are connected to the broader corruption allegations against Emefiele. Like the former governor, Omoile has pleaded not guilty to all charges, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle.
During Thursday’s proceedings, the prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, cross-examined Offial on the circumstances surrounding Omoile’s interrogation and statement-taking at the EFCC. In a series of pointed questions, Oyedepo sought to establish whether due process was followed and whether the defence’s claims of coercion could be substantiated.
Under oath, Offial admitted that his client was duly cautioned in his presence before making any statement and that Omoile signed the cautionary form. He further acknowledged that he actively participated in the interrogation process and was fully aware that whatever his client wrote in his statement could be tendered and relied upon in court. This admission appeared to weaken earlier suggestions that the statement was extracted under duress or without legal guidance.
The defence counsel also confirmed that he did not lodge any complaint or file a petition against the EFCC regarding the conduct of the investigative team. When pressed further, Offial conceded that in a separate fundamental rights enforcement action earlier filed by Omoile, the court did not find the EFCC guilty of any misconduct. He went on to state unequivocally that his client was never harassed in his presence during the interrogation process.
These admissions stood in sharp contrast to earlier testimony in which Offial had accused EFCC investigators of attempting to pressure Omoile into implicating Emefiele. In that earlier account, the lawyer alleged that investigators made promises to his client, suggesting he could secure bail or even avoid prosecution entirely if he cooperated by providing incriminating evidence against the former CBN governor.
According to Offial’s initial narrative, Omoile had informed him that the head of the EFCC interrogation team gave assurances that cooperation would lead to favourable treatment. Such claims, if proven, could have undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence and raised serious questions about investigative ethics. However, under cross-examination, the defence counsel admitted that these allegations were unfounded and unsupported by any formal complaint or judicial finding.
The witness further testified that the interrogation followed a structured question-and-answer format. He explained that Omoile was required to respond orally to questions posed by investigators, after which he was allowed to write down his answers on the statement sheet. This process, Offial acknowledged, was conducted in his presence, and there was no physical or psychological harassment observed.
Legal observers note that the trial-within-trial is a critical phase of the proceedings. The court’s eventual decision on the voluntariness of Omoile’s statements will determine whether they can be admitted as evidence against him and, potentially, against Emefiele. Statements deemed involuntary are typically excluded, which could significantly affect the prosecution’s case.
The EFCC, for its part, has maintained that all investigative procedures were conducted in line with the law and that the rights of the defendants were fully respected. Prosecutors argue that the allegations of coercion were an afterthought designed to weaken otherwise damaging evidence. The admissions made by Omoile’s counsel during cross-examination appear to bolster the commission’s position.
Justice Oshodi, who has been presiding over the matter, listened attentively to the exchanges and intervened at intervals to clarify points of law and procedure. At the conclusion of the day’s hearing, he adjourned the case until January 16, 2026, for the continuation of the trial-within-trial.
The case against Emefiele has attracted intense public attention, given his former role as head of Nigeria’s monetary authority and the scale of the sums allegedly involved. Supporters of the former governor argue that the charges are politically motivated, while critics insist that the trial represents a long-overdue effort to enforce accountability at the highest levels of public office.
As proceedings continue, the court is expected to rule on the admissibility of the contested statements before the substantive trial resumes in full. Until then, the admissions made in court on Thursday are likely to feature prominently in legal and public discourse, shaping perceptions of both the defence strategy and the conduct of the EFCC’s investigation. The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s anti-corruption drive and the legal standards governing high-profile prosecutions.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments