Emefiele Loses Bid to Halt Trial Over Abuse of Office
The former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, on Wednesday, lost his bid to stop his trial over allegations of abuse of office. Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja dismissed the application that challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.
In his ruling, Justice Oshodi affirmed that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had sufficiently established that the court had territorial jurisdiction to hear counts eight through 20 of the charges. However, the judge struck out counts one to four, ruling that the offences outlined in those counts were not recognized by law.
Emefiele was arraigned alongside one Herry Omoile on charges of accepting gratification, receiving gifts through agents, corruption, and fraudulent property receipts. The EFCC also accused Emefiele of conferring corrupt advantages to his associates, in violation of the Corrupt Practices Act of 2000. Both defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Emefiele’s legal team, led by Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued that the case involved issues of constitutional and legal significance, claiming that he could not be tried in any State High Court in Nigeria for the alleged abuse of office. They contended that the court did not have jurisdiction over actions allegedly committed by Emefiele during his tenure as CBN governor.
However, the EFCC opposed the application, with its lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) asserting that the charges against Emefiele involved economic and financial crimes, which fall under the EFCC’s mandate to investigate and prosecute. Oyedepo also emphasized that the crimes took place in Lagos State, making it the proper venue for the trial.
Justice Oshodi ruled that counts one to four related to the general offence of abuse of office, but the specific actions alleged, such as the allocation of foreign exchange without a bid, did not constitute an offence under any written law. Consequently, the court struck out those counts.
For counts eight through 26, the judge confirmed that the court had the territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the trial based on the evidence presented. He clarified that his ruling on the jurisdictional issue did not address the merits of the allegations.
Justice Oshodi dismissed the objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction over counts eight through 26 and adjourned the case for trial continuation on February 24 and 26.
