Judiciary

Court to Rule May 4 on Admissibility of Co-Defendant’s Statement in Emefiele Trial

Published

2 hours ago

April 17, 2026

An Ikeja Special Offences Court has fixed May 4, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of an extra-judicial statement made by Henry Omoile, a co-defendant in the ongoing trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele.

The court scheduled the ruling date after counsel to both the defence and the prosecution adopted their respective written addresses on the admissibility or otherwise of the statement of the second defendant during the trial-within-trial.

Emefiele is standing trial on a 19-count charge bordering on alleged gratification, corrupt demands, and abuse of office linked to large-scale financial transactions.

Omoile, his associate, faces a three-count charge relating to the alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts while acting as an agent in transactions connected to the CBN.

The charges involve alleged transactions estimated at $4.5 billion and ₦2.8 billion, which the prosecution claims represent serious breaches of trust and procedure.

Justice Rahman Oshodi had earlier adjourned proceedings for the adoption of final written addresses following the conclusion of evidence, including the cross-examination of Omoile in the trial-within-trial.

Adopting the second defendant’s written address, his counsel, Adeyinka Kotoye, SAN, argued that the key issue before the court is whether the statement attributed to his client was made voluntarily.

He contended that the process of obtaining the statement did not comply with mandatory provisions of the law, particularly Sections 9(3) and (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) and Sections 17(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

He emphasised that where voluntariness is in dispute, video recording of the interrogation process is crucial.

Relying on Supreme Court authorities, he argued that video evidence is the most reliable means of verifying compliance with due process.

Kotoye further submitted that the prosecution failed to provide independent evidence to corroborate the alleged confessional statement and questioned the role of the legal practitioner said to have been present during its recording, alleging that the lawyer was prevented from effectively performing his duty.

Counsel also argued that the prosecution misapplied relevant statutory provisions by limiting them to confessional statements alone, whereas the law applies broadly to statements made during investigation.

He suggested that the statement may have been influenced by coercion or inducement and urged the court to reject it.

Similarly, counsel to the first defendant, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, urged the court to resolve any doubt regarding the voluntariness of the statement in favour of the defence.

He relied on Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act, which renders inadmissible any statement obtained through oppression, inducement, or improper means.

Ojo argued that once voluntariness is challenged, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove, on the balance of probability, that the statement was freely made.

He maintained that the prosecution failed to discharge this burden, noting that the circumstances surrounding the statement raise serious doubts about its credibility.

He further submitted that established judicial authorities underscore that only voluntary confessions are admissible, adding that modern criminal procedure recognises the importance of safeguards such as video recordings.

Ojo also faulted the prosecution for failing to challenge key aspects of the defendant’s testimony, including allegations of trauma, inducement, and lack of proper legal representation, arguing that such omissions are fatal to the prosecution’s case.

In opposition, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the Federal Ministry of Justice, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the defence submissions.

Oyedepo argued that counsel to the first defendant lacked the basis to challenge the admissibility of the second defendant’s statement, having initially declined to object when it was tendered.

He described the subsequent challenge as an abuse of court process.

He maintained that the statement was obtained in substantial compliance with the provisions of the ACJA, adding that although it was not video-recorded, it was made in the presence of the second defendant’s counsel.

The DPP further submitted that the contents of the second defendant’s statement undermine the defence’s claim of coercion.

He pointed out that the second defendant, in the statement, expressly refused to implicate the first defendant, Godwin Emefiele, in any wrongdoing.

According to him, this position demonstrates that the statement was not made under duress or undue influence, as the defendant maintained an independent stance rather than yielding to any alleged pressure from investigators.

Oyedepo also noted that the second defendant, in the same statement, denied committing all the offences alleged against him in the charge.

He argued that such denials are inconsistent with the suggestion that the statement was extracted through coercion, intimidation, or inducement.

He therefore urged the court to hold that the statement was voluntarily made and remains admissible in evidence.

The DPP also dismissed allegations of intimidation, stating that the statement was taken in the presence of several individuals, making coercion unlikely.

He added that the defendant was duly cautioned and voluntarily signed the cautionary form before making the statement.

Following the adoption of written addresses by all parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned the matter for ruling on May 4, 2026, and fixed June 26 and June 30, 2026, for the continuation of the substantive trial.

Judiciary

Alleged Fraud: Court Issues Arrest Warrant Against Ex-Minister Sadiya Farouq

Published

9 hours ago

April 17, 2026

Staff Editor

Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the Federal Capital Territory High Court has issued a warrant of arrest against a former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Disaster Management and Social Development, Sadiya Farouq, and the Permanent Secretary in the ministry, Bashir Nura Alkali.

The court issued the arrest warrant following their failure to appear for arraignment on charges linking them to an alleged fraud involving $1.3 million and ₦746.6 million.

Mrs. Farouq, who served from 2019 to 2023, supervised key social intervention programmes, including the National Social Investment Programme.

Justice Onwuegbuzie granted the order while ruling on an ex parte motion filed by counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), after the two defendants failed to attend court for their scheduled arraignment.

Before moving the motion, Jacobs sought and obtained leave of the court to amend the charge by removing the name of the third defendant, Sani Mohammed, who was present in court.

The EFCC filed a 21-count charge against the defendants, bordering on criminal breach of trust, abuse of office, fraudulent award of contracts, and diversion of public funds.

According to the commission, the defendants were involved in the alleged mismanagement and diversion of $1,300,000 and ₦746,574,303.

The EFCC further alleged that Farouq and Alkali converted $1.3 million meant to be refunded to the ministry by Visual ICT Limited. The funds were said to be excess payments under the National Social Safety Net Coordinating Office programme for the validation of Rapid Response Register beneficiaries.

Jacobs informed the court that although the charges were filed on December 15, 2025, the first and second defendants had failed to present themselves for arraignment. He added that their lawyers had previously assured the court of producing them but did not fulfil that undertaking.

The prosecutor also told the court that Farouq travelled to Saudi Arabia in 2024 for medical treatment after her passport was released by the commission but has yet to return it or submit a medical report.

He noted that the medical documents later presented by her legal team were issued after the charges had already been filed.

Counsel to the defendants, Abdul Ibrahim, however, maintained that the ex-minister’s absence was due to ill health.

Justice Onwuegbuzie subsequently adjourned the matter to May 18 for arraignment.

Judiciary

Court Adjourns Trial Of Driver In Anthony Joshua’s Car Crash To June 2

Published

1 day ago

April 16, 2026

Staff Editor

The Ogun Magistrate’s Court 1, sitting in Sagamu, Sagamu Local Government Area of the state, and presided over by Magistrate Olufunilayo Somefun, has adjourned the trial of the driver of the Lexus SUV involved in former heavyweight boxing champion Anthony Joshua’s road crash to June 2, 2026.

This is about the fourth time the case has been adjourned to allow the prosecuting team to file a fresh charge to the existing information on the case.

The defendant, Adeniyi Mobolaji, was charged with four counts, which include allegations of dangerous driving causing death.

Mobolaji was charged with allegations of reckless and negligent driving, contrary to Section 6(1) of the same Act, driving without due care and attention, causing bodily harm, and damage to property, contrary to Section 7(1) of the Act.

He was also accused of driving without a valid national driver’s licence, contrary to Section 10(1) of the Federal Highway Act.

Giving her ruling on the request for an adjournment by the prosecution counsel, G. O. Ogunyomi, the presiding magistrate, Olufunilayo Somefun, adjourned the case to June 92 for proper hearing , which was not objected to by the defence counsel.

Speaking shortly after the proceeding, the counsel to the defendant, Abiodun Olalekan, said the development was to ensure justice for all parties involved in the matter.

The 46-year-old driver was involved in the fatal accident that claimed the lives of Joshua’s personal trainer, Latif Ayodele, and strength and conditioning coach, Sina Ghami, along the busy Lagos-Ibadan Expressway on December 29, 2025.

The Lexus SUV collided with a stationary truck, leaving Joshua and the driver with minor injuries.

The boxing champion was later discharged from the hospital after being deemed clinically fit to continue his recovery at home.

Ghami and Ayodele’s demise sent shockwaves across the international boxing community.

The deceased associates were widely regarded as central figures in Joshua’s camp.

Their remains were later flown back to the United Kingdom, where a funeral prayer service was held on January 4, 2026, at the London Central Mosque.

Judiciary

DSS Re-Arraigns Malami, Son Over Alleged Terrorism

Published

1 day ago

April 16, 2026

Staff Editor

The Department of State Services (DSS) has re-arraigned a former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and his son, Abdulaziz, before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on an amended charge bordering on alleged terrorism and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.

At the hearing, counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), informed the court that an amended charge had been filed to replace the earlier one on which the defendants were initially arraigned.

Kehinde subsequently applied to withdraw the earlier charge and requested that the amended charge be read to the defendants for their pleas to be taken afresh.

Counsel to the defendants, Shaibu Aruwa (SAN), confirmed that his clients had been served with the amended charge and did not object to it being read in court.

Malami and his son are alleged to have, in December 2025, prepared to commit acts of terrorism by unlawfully possessing a Sturm Magnum 17–0101 firearm, 16 Redstar AAA 5.20 live cartridges, and 27 expended Redstar cartridges without a licence.

Parts of the amended charge read:

“That you, Abubakar Malami, adult male, and Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, adult male, sometime in December 2025, at Geeze Phase II Area, Birnin Kebbi LGA, Kebbi State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did engage in preparation to commit acts of terrorism by having in your possession, without a licence, a Sturm Magnum 17–0101 firearm, 16 Redstar AAA 5.20 live cartridges, and 27 expended Redstar cartridges, thereby committing an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 29 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

“That you, Abubakar Malami, adult male, and Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, adult male, sometime in December 2025, at Geeze Phase II Area, Birnin Kebbi LGA, Kebbi State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did conspire among yourselves in preparation to commit acts of terrorism by having in your possession, without a licence, a Sturm Magnum 17–0101 firearm, 16 Redstar AAA 5.20 live cartridges, and 27 expended Redstar cartridges, contrary to Section 26(1) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 and punishable under Section 26(3)(a) and (b) of the same Act.”

Upon the reading of the charges, both defendants pleaded not guilty, prompting the DSS counsel to request a date for the commencement of trial.

The defence counsel did not oppose the request for trial dates but urged the court to allow the defendants to continue on the bail earlier granted to them, having fulfilled the conditions.

With no objection from the prosecution, Justice Abdulmalik ordered that the defendants remain on the bail earlier granted on February 27, having met the stipulated conditions.

The court subsequently adjourned the matter to May 26 and June 15 for trial.