Nigeria’s Courtroom Drama: Truth Waits Outside While Power Debates Procedure.

0
155
Emefiele- in Court
Emefiele- in Court

ABUJA, Nigeria (FN) — A Nigerian court has adjourned until Nov. 27 to rule on whether a key prosecution witness may testify in the ongoing trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor Godwin Emefiele.

Justice Hamza Muazu of the Abuja High Court postponed the decision after hearing arguments over the eligibility of Alvan Grumman, the prosecution’s 11th witness, who was listed in an additional proof of evidence previously struck out by the court.

Emefiele is facing a 20-count amended charge brought by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (OAGF), including allegations of criminal breach of trust, forgery, conspiracy, and obtaining money by false pretence. Prosecutors allege that between 2018 and 2022, Emefiele used his position to award contracts worth 1.2 billion Naira to April 1616, a company linked to a CBN staff member, Sa’adatu Ramalan Yaro.

Emefiele has pleaded not guilty.

During Wednesday’s hearing, defense counsel Mathew Burkaa, SAN, objected to Grumman’s testimony, arguing that his name was included in a document the court had previously struck out in a March 20 ruling. Burkaa said the prosecution had appealed that decision and could not simultaneously pursue the same matter in the lower court.

Prosecution counsel Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, countered that the March 20 ruling did not mention Grumman and only applied to two other witnesses. He argued that Grumman, who investigated the case, holds material facts and should be allowed to testify.

Justice Muazu said the court would rule on the objection and resume proceedings on Nov. 27.

Earlier in the hearing, Oyedepo informed the court that the prosecution had filed applications to subpoena two additional witnesses, Tommy Odama and Ifeanyi Omeke, who he said possess critical information. The defense opposed the move, arguing that the court’s earlier ruling should bar further attempts to introduce those witnesses, especially since the prosecution had already appealed the decision.

The defense also noted that the subpoenas were filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), not the OAGF, which is leading the prosecution.

The court reserved its ruling on the subpoena applications.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here