morganaBLE news/Crime&Courts
The controversy originated from proceedings held on February 24, 2025, during the examination-in-chief of the prosecution’s seventh witness in the criminal case against Emefiele.
KaNo—
The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos has reserved judgment in an appeal filed by former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele, challenging the refusal of a trial judge to withdraw from his ongoing criminal trial over allegations involving $400,000.
A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Biobele Georgewill, reserved judgment on Tuesday after listening to arguments presented by lawyers representing Emefiele and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The former CBN governor is seeking to overturn the February 26, 2025, ruling of Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, which dismissed his application asking the judge to recuse himself from the proceedings over alleged bias.
Emefiele, through his legal team led by Olalekan Ojo (SAN) and Olawale Fapohunda (SAN), maintained that certain remarks made by the trial judge while ruling on an objection during the testimony of a prosecution witness raised concerns about his impartiality.
His lawyers argued that the judge’s decision to allow a leading question concerning an alleged $400,000 payment created the impression that he had already reached a conclusion on a disputed issue before the conclusion of the trial.
However, the EFCC, represented by C.C. Okezie, opposed the appeal and urged the appellate court to dismiss it, describing the former CBN governor’s application as an abuse of court process.
Okezie maintained that the trial judge acted within the provisions of the law and asked the appellate panel to examine the testimony of the prosecution’s seventh witness, identified as PW7, alongside the relevant records of proceedings.
After hearing submissions from both parties, the appellate court reserved judgment and announced that the date for its delivery would be communicated to the parties.
Before considering the substantive appeal, the panel granted procedural applications filed by both sides to regularise their processes.
The court deemed properly filed and served Emefiele’s motion on notice dated February 6, 2026, seeking permission to introduce additional records relevant to the appeal.
It also regularised the EFCC’s respondent’s brief through a motion dated January 21, 2026, clearing the way for arguments on the disputed ruling.
The controversy originated from proceedings held on February 24, 2025, during the examination-in-chief of the prosecution’s seventh witness in the criminal case against Emefiele.
According to the former CBN governor’s brief of argument, the witness had informed the trial court that one John Ayoh handed him the sum of $400,000.
During the examination, prosecution counsel subsequently asked the witness whether the money was the same amount allegedly delivered to Emefiele in his office.
The question prompted an objection from the defence team, which argued that the prosecution had asked a leading question capable of suggesting the answer expected from the witness.
In determining the objection, Justice Oshodi acknowledged that the question was leading but ruled that it could be permitted under Section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
The provision allows courts to permit leading questions in certain circumstances, including matters considered introductory, undisputed or sufficiently established.
Explaining his decision, the judge held that the question fell within the circumstances contemplated by the relevant provision of the Evidence Act.
Following the ruling, Emefiele’s lawyers immediately raised concerns about the judge’s impartiality, arguing that his reference to matters sufficiently proved suggested that he had already accepted the prosecution’s allegation concerning the disputed payment.
The defence subsequently applied for Justice Oshodi to withdraw from the proceedings, insisting that the circumstances created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
However, in a ruling delivered on February 26, 2025, the judge rejected the application, holding that the defence had failed to establish sufficient grounds to justify his withdrawal from the case.
Dissatisfied with that decision, Emefiele approached the Court of Appeal through a notice of appeal dated March 6, 2025, seeking to have the ruling set aside.
Presenting the former CBN governor’s arguments, Ojo contended that the trial judge had wrongly relied on a provision permitting leading questions on matters sufficiently proved when the allegation remained contested.
He maintained that the question of whether Emefiele received the alleged $400,000 constituted a substantive issue requiring determination after the prosecution had concluded its case and the defence had been afforded an opportunity to challenge the evidence.
According to the senior lawyer, the prosecution witness had not even been subjected to cross-examination when the disputed ruling was delivered.
He argued that the judge’s remarks could reasonably create the impression that the court had already accepted the prosecution’s position regarding the alleged payment.
The defence maintained that such an impression was capable of undermining public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial proceedings.
Ojo further submitted that Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, guarantees every defendant the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial court.
He argued that the constitutional protection extended beyond actual bias to circumstances capable of creating a reasonable likelihood or apprehension of bias.
In support of his submissions, the senior advocate cited several judicial authorities, including In Re Abdullahi (2018), A.I.C. Ltd v. Edo State Government (2016), and CIL Risk & Asset Management Ltd v. Ekiti State Government (2020).
He urged the appellate court to consider whether the trial judge’s remarks, viewed within the circumstances of the proceedings, raised legitimate concerns about his continued participation in the case.
The defence also challenged the trial court’s reliance on previous judicial decisions concerning allegations of bias, arguing that those authorities were distinguishable from the circumstances surrounding Emefiele’s application.
The EFCC, however, rejected the arguments and maintained that Justice Oshodi had properly exercised his judicial discretion in allowing the disputed question.
The anti-graft agency insisted that the trial judge’s decision did not establish bias and urged the appellate court to affirm the ruling dismissing the recusal application.
The appeal forms part of the criminal proceedings instituted against Emefiele under an amended information dated April 3, 2024.
The charges against the former apex bank governor include allegations of accepting gratification, corrupt demand and receiving property allegedly obtained fraudulently, contrary to Sections 8, 10 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
The allegations remain before the trial court, while the appellate court’s pending decision will determine whether Justice Oshodi’s refusal to withdraw from the proceedings should stand.
Emefiele continues to challenge the allegations against him, which remain subject to judicial determination.
