Court admits Supreme Court forfeiture judgment as evidence against Emefiele
Court admits Supreme Court forfeiture judgment as evidence against Emefiele
Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, on Friday admitted a certified true copy of a Supreme Court judgment in evidence, dismissing objections raised by the defence in the ongoing trial of a former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele.
The judge held that the judgment was a public document and that a certified true copy was admissible as secondary evidence, adding that the defence had been duly served with the document.
Emefiele is facing a 19-count charge bordering on alleged gratification, corrupt demands and abuse of office, involving transactions valued at $4.5bn and N2.8bn.
His co-defendant, Henry Omoile, is standing trial on a three-count charge of alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts.
Delivering his ruling, Oshodi said, “A judgment of the Supreme Court is a public document. The only secondary evidence of a public document that the law permits is a certified true copy, and a certified true copy of a judgement of the Supreme Court is admissible in evidence.”
The defence had raised two preliminary objections to the admissibility of the judgment, questioning whether it was included in the proof of evidence as required under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and whether it could be admitted when only the lead judgment was printed.
Addressing the issue of service, the judge said the court’s record of proceedings for November 12, 2026, showed that the defence had been served with the document before the matter was adjourned to Friday.
“The requirement of service has been satisfied,” he held.
On the second objection concerning the inclusion of only the lead judgment, Oshodi relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Matthias v. Shiki and Others against Uchechukwu Onerma and Others (2021) LPELR-56552(CA).
He said the same issue had arisen in the case, where a certified true copy of a Supreme Court judgment in suit number SC.151/2000, containing only the lead judgment delivered by Justice Onu, was admitted as Exhibit A.
The judge explained that the appellant had challenged the admissibility and reliability of the document on the ground that it was incomplete.
However, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument, noting that the appellant had not alleged any difference between the lead judgment and the concurring judgment.
Oshodi said the appellate court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Abacha and Others v. Fawehinmi (2000), where the apex court held that:
“It is the leading judgement that is legal, that is, in legal circles, regarded as the judgment of the court,” he said.
He said the Court of Appeal consequently dismissed the appellant’s contention as unsupported by law.
“The lead judgement does not make it incomplete or inadmissible, as was held in Matthias v. Shiki and Others,” Oshodi said.
Addressing the defence’s concerns about the use of a civil judgment in a criminal trial, the judge said the objection was adequately addressed by the limited purpose for which a court judgment could be used after being admitted in evidence.
He cited the Supreme Court decision in David v. Friyisi Akperen (2000) LPELR-1557(SC), where the apex court held that court judgments were tendered to establish what was actually decided in a previous case and not to use the evidence given in that case for or against any of the parties.
Quoting the Supreme Court, Oshodi said, “It has been well settled that court judgement are only used when tendered in a trial to determine and confirm what was actually decided in the case, and not to use the evidence given in it for or against any of the parties therein.”
The judge also referred to the decisions in Egwu v. Ezeubu (1992), Okoye v. Ogoji (1991) and Ademba v. Odizi (1999), as cited in the Supreme Court judgment.
He emphasised that the judgment would not be used as evidence for or against any party in the ongoing criminal proceedings.
“For these reasons, I overrule the objection. I admit the certified copy of the judgement in evidence and mark the same as Exhibit L. It will be used not as evidence for or against any party,” Oshodi ruled.
Defence, prosecution disagree over admissibility
Before the ruling, counsel for the first defendant, Olekan Ojo, SAN, had opposed the admission of the judgment, arguing that findings in civil forfeiture proceedings could not be used to establish the guilt of a defendant in a criminal trial.
Law and Practice in Nigeria, Ojo argued that a civil judgment could not be tendered in a criminal prosecution to establish the truth of the facts upon which it was based.
He also cited the Privy Council decision in Hui Chi-Ming v. The Queen and the English case of Hunter v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, submitting that findings in civil proceedings were not admissible to establish the ingredients of a criminal offence.
Ojo further argued that the relevance of a document depended on the purpose for which it was tendered, describing the principle as the “Purpose Doctrine in the Law of Evidence”.
He maintained that the Supreme Court judgment was being introduced to establish facts relating to properties forfeited in civil proceedings and that such findings could not determine the criminal liability of the defendants.
Counsel for the second defendant, Adeyinka Kotoye, SAN, aligned himself with Ojo’s submissions, arguing that the judgment arose after the criminal proceedings had commenced and was not included in the proof of evidence as required by Section 379(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
He also raised concerns about the principles of estoppel and the presumption of innocence, arguing that the prosecution should not be allowed to relitigate issues already determined in the forfeiture proceedings.
However, EFCC prosecutor, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, urged the court to admit the document, arguing that it was a certified true copy of a Supreme Court judgment and complied with Sections 102 to 104 of the Evidence Act.
He maintained that the purpose for which a document would eventually be used could not render an otherwise admissible document inadmissible.
Oyedepo also argued that any concerns about the weight to be attached to the judgment should be considered during the evaluation of evidence rather than at the stage of admissibility.
In his reply, Ojo disagreed, insisting that the purpose for which a document was tendered was crucial to determining its admissibility.
He also relied on Section 62 of the Evidence Act, arguing that the existence of the judgment was not a fact in issue in the criminal proceedings.
EFCC investigator grilled over Zenith Bank interview
Following the ruling, the trial continued with the cross-examination of Alvan Gurumnaan, who led a 10-man special operations team that investigated the case.
The witness, who said he joined the commission as an investigator on February 8, 2008, disclosed that he had a Bachelor of Laws degree and was called to the Nigerian Bar in 2006.
Under cross-examination by Ojo, he said his responsibilities as lead investigator included signing letters, processing information, interviewing suspects and analysing bank statements.
He also confirmed that he personally interviewed the former Managing Director of Zenith Bank, Ebenezer Onyeagwu, during the investigation.
When Ojo asked whether the interaction with the bank’s managing director yielded useful information, the witness answered, “It did.”
The defence counsel subsequently asked whether the investigator obtained a written statement from Onyeagwu after the interview, describing it as standard investigative practice.
The witness acknowledged that obtaining a statement after an interview was standard practice but said he could not immediately remember whether it was done in that particular instance.
The investigator subsequently disclosed the names of some members of his team, including Madi Abubakar, Moses Oteh, Vincent Sunday, David Jaiyeoba, Michelle Atien, Aziz Ajibotosho and other operatives identified as Nandom, Favour, Blessing and Baba.
He explained that the investigation was initially conducted in Abuja before the team was relocated to Lagos.
Asked about the people interviewed by members of the team, the witness said they interviewed hundreds of people, including the first and second defendants, staff of the Central Bank of Nigeria, commercial banks and other government agencies.
He further disclosed that he personally interviewed PW1, Monday Osazuwa, and participated in the interview of another prosecution witness.
