Emefiele’s Lawyer Tackles EFCC Over Evidence Ambush As Approach To Prosecution 

Olalekan Ojo (SAN), who led the team of lawyers representing the suspended Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, has voiced strong criticism of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for its handling of Emefiele’s prosecution concerning allegations of gratification, abuse of office, and other charges.

Speaking during the trial before Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court (Special Offence), Ikeja, Ojo expressed his discontent with the EFCC’s prosecution approach, seeking an adjournment during the recent hearing on Friday.

Emefiele currently faces a 23-count charge, including allegations of abuse of office, acceptance of gratifications, and corrupt demands, among others, brought against him and another individual by the EFCC.

Emefiele’s co-defendant, Isioma-Omoile was  also docked on three- counts charge, but the defendants however pleaded not guilty to the charge

At the proceeding  on Friday, the defendants criticism of EFCC approach to prosecution was sequel to the new proof of evidence served on them by the prosecutor, Rotimi Oyedepo SAN.

At the last hearing of the case, the court has fixed May 3, (Friday) for the continuation of cross examination the prosecution second witness, John Ayoh.

However, at the resumed hearing yesterday, the prosecutor, Oyedepo served another fresh proof of evidence on the defendants which made them to seek for adjournment of the case.

Ojo informed  the court that the prosecution had filed an additional proof of evidence and he need enough time to go through it.

Ojo argued that Emefiele had not seen  the document and that Justice rushed  was justice crushed

According to him: “I  am constraint  at this point  to ask  your lordship to do  justice, the proof must  be served  early enough.

“Defence  may  find anything useful in the additional proof of evidence to  cross-examine the witness in the box.

“humbly urge to court to adjourn this matter so that I can thoroughly go through it and study it.”

The second defendant’s counsel, Mr Adeyinka Kotoye (SAN) also aligned himself with  the submission of the first defence counsel.

Kotoye argued that it was only in the part of the world that prosecution would  be conducting investigation while case was already ongoing in court.

He therefore urged the court to adjourn the case in the interest of justice and adequate opportunity to study the additional proof of evidence.

“I urge  your lordship  not to entertain  this trial by ambush and put a stop to it.

“I also apply  your lordship mandate  the prosecution  to supply  us all relevant materials.

“Therefore,on the spirit of fairness, I urge  your lordship to adjourn the case,”Kotoye  said.

The EFCC prosecutor, Oyedepo in his reply, informed the court that the second prosecution witness was in court  for the continuation of cross-examination  and that he had served defence the statement of one Mr John Adetola, as an additional proof of evidence.

Oyedepo, while opposing  the submissions of the  two defence counsel, prayed the court for the continuation of the cross-examination of the second prosecution witness.

He said  it was unfair for a senior advocate of Nigeria whom he owed in high esteem to describe his team and its activities as prosecutorial unfairness.

According to him, Adeola was a 5th prosecution witness in the proof of evidence,

Oyedepo said Adetola’s statement  was contained in volume two of what  was served on defence on April 4.

He said: “In  preparation  for his testimony  that will  be coming  up not today, not even on May  9,  the prosecution, rather than  wait for defence  to formally place a demand on us on what is in the device, diligence prosecution made me make  the device  available to defence.

“My lord, how does that amount to prosecutorial unfairness?

“I plead with defence not to delay this case unnecessarily as we have a witness in the box  who had given evidence and he is being cross-examined by the first  defence counsel.

“If defence is angry that I served them  the proof of evidence today, we can withdraw it and serve same later day.”

The prosecution told the court that the society interested and watching the proceeding of the case.

“The society is interested,  they are watching us that  will this matter be adjourned based on the evidence of another  man who is not the witness in the box?

“We are not rushing  or crushing justice, rather, we are aiding  the oil of Justice  to rise  steadily.

“Expeditious determination of case is of utmost importance and so we urge your lordship to allow the cross-examination.” Oyedepo said.

After listening to both parties, the trial judge, Justice Oshodi adjourned the trial till May 9 for defence to study the additional proof of evidence served on them by the prosecution.

Justice Oshodi, in his short ruling, said he had considered the submissions of both parties and he  was satisfied  with  the  reasons given by defence for adjournment

He said: “I have considered the conflicting submissions regarding whether I should adjourn for further continuation of trial.

“I am satisfied with the reasons given by defence. For the adjournment sought, I grant it.

“I Adjourn until May 9 for continuation of trial.”