Blog

Court to Rule on Emefiele’s Application Alleging Bias, February 26

The ongoing trial of Godwin Emefiele, the former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), took a significant turn on Monday, February 24, 2025, during the proceedings before Justice R.A. Oshodi of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos. Emefiele, who faces a 19-count charge of receiving gratification and corrupt demand, raised an issue of judicial bias, asking the court to recuse itself from hearing his case. This application, if granted, could have a profound impact on the trajectory of the case, which has already attracted significant public and media attention.

The trial also includes Emefiele’s co-defendant, Henry Omoile, who is facing a three-count charge of unlawful acceptance of gifts by agents. Both Emefiele and Omoile have pleaded “not guilty” to the charges, and the EFCC is vigorously pursuing the case, alleging that the two defendants were involved in a series of corrupt transactions. The outcome of this trial will have significant ramifications, not only for the two individuals involved but also for the broader fight against corruption in Nigeria’s financial sector.

Godwin Emefiele, who served as the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria from 2014 to 2024, has been accused by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of receiving bribes and engaging in corrupt practices during his tenure. The 19-count charge against him relates to the unlawful receipt of gratification and other corrupt demands, specifically in connection with his role in approving financial transactions and dealings that allegedly involved large sums of money.

Henry Omoile, Emefiele’s co-defendant, is accused of unlawfully accepting gifts from agents, which are alleged to have been part of a broader corrupt arrangement involving Emefiele. Both individuals have denied all allegations, maintaining their innocence throughout the trial. The EFCC is seeking to prove that the accused parties engaged in corrupt acts that undermined the integrity of their respective offices.

The case has been marked by a series of contentious hearings, with the defense consistently challenging the prosecution’s evidence and the conduct of the trial. On February 24, 2025, the proceedings reached a critical juncture when the defense raised an issue of bias concerning the trial judge, prompting a request for recusal.

At the heart of Monday’s proceedings was an application made by the defense for Justice Oshodi to recuse himself from the trial. The defense counsel, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, representing Emefiele, and Kazeem Gbadamosi, SAN, representing Omoile, argued that the trial judge had exhibited bias against the defendants during the course of the trial, which, according to them, had compromised the fairness of the proceedings.

The defense’s application followed the completion of the examination-in-chief of the seventh prosecution witness, Adetola John, but rather than proceeding with the cross-examination, the defense lawyers opted to make an oral application for recusal, alleging that the judge’s conduct had shown partiality. This move effectively stalled the trial, as the defense refused to cross-examine the witness, citing the alleged bias of the court as the reason.

The defense’s claim of bias is not new to legal proceedings, but in this case, the defense lawyers presented their objections directly to the judge, arguing that the judge’s previous rulings had consistently favored the prosecution. They contended that this pattern of rulings created an atmosphere where the defendants could not receive a fair trial and that the judge’s impartiality was in question.

In response to the defense’s application, the prosecution, led by Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, vehemently opposed the request for recusal. Oyedepo dismissed the defense’s allegations of bias, asserting that the judge had, on multiple occasions, ruled in a manner that was unfavorable to the prosecution. He argued that, in a case where the defense disagreed with a ruling, they had the legal right to appeal, but that such disagreements should not be used as grounds to accuse the judge of bias.

Oyedepo emphasized that the defense’s application was nothing more than a delay tactic, designed to derail the trial. He pointed out that there had been no concrete evidence presented to substantiate the claim of judicial bias. He also argued that the trial had been granted accelerated hearing by the court, meaning that it was being processed in a timely manner with an emphasis on ensuring that justice was served efficiently. Therefore, he urged the court to disregard the application and allow the trial to proceed without further delay.

The legal principle behind a request for recusal is grounded in the need for fair and impartial adjudication. A judge is expected to recuse themselves if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, either through their conduct or prior involvement in the case. However, accusations of bias are serious and must be substantiated by clear evidence. In this case, the defense has argued that the judge’s previous rulings have demonstrated an unwillingness to accommodate their requests or arguments, but the prosecution has countered that these rulings were made based on the law and the facts presented.

According to Nigerian legal precedent, a request for recusal is typically assessed based on whether the defendant can prove that the judge has acted in a manner that would lead an objective observer to conclude that the judge is not impartial. Mere dissatisfaction with judicial rulings is not enough to warrant a recusal. The defense would need to provide substantial evidence of bias, which can be a high bar to meet.

At the center of Monday’s proceedings was the testimony of the seventh prosecution witness, Adetola John, who was called to testify about the alleged financial transactions involving Emefiele and Omoile. John’s testimony was crucial to the prosecution’s case, as it sought to establish the link between the defendants and the financial misconduct alleged against them. The prosecution had completed the examination-in-chief of John, which meant that the defense had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness to challenge the evidence presented.

However, the defense chose to forego cross-examination, instead using the moment to lodge their application for the judge’s recusal. This decision led to a delay in the proceedings, which further heightened the tension surrounding the trial. Given that the defense had already indicated their intention to challenge the prosecution’s case vigorously, the refusal to cross-examine was seen as a strategic move to prolong the proceedings.

Following the application and the arguments presented by both the defense and the prosecution, Justice Oshodi adjourned the matter to February 26, 2025, for a ruling on the recusal application. This means that, for the time being, the trial remains in a state of uncertainty, with the potential for further delays depending on the court’s decision regarding the allegations of bias.

If the court grants the application for recusal, it could result in a significant shift in the trial, potentially leading to the appointment of a new judge to oversee the case. On the other hand, if the court dismisses the application, the trial would likely continue as scheduled, with the defense having the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the prosecution presenting more evidence in support of their case.

The outcome of the recusal application could have a profound impact on the trajectory of the trial. A ruling in favor of the defense could delay the case by weeks or even months, depending on the time it takes for a new judge to be assigned. This could give Emefiele and Omoile additional time to prepare their defense or attempt to resolve the charges through other means.

Conversely, a ruling against the application would allow the trial to proceed more swiftly, potentially bringing the case closer to a conclusion. If the trial continues without further delay, the prosecution will likely focus on presenting additional evidence and witnesses, while the defense will seek to challenge the allegations and discredit the prosecution’s case.

The trial of Godwin Emefiele has garnered significant public attention, as it involves the former governor of Nigeria’s central bank, a highly influential position in the country’s financial system. The allegations of corruption and financial misconduct have raised concerns about the integrity of public office holders and the state of Nigeria’s financial sector. The outcome of the trial will send a strong message about the government’s commitment to fighting corruption at the highest levels.

For the legal community, the case highlights the importance of judicial independence and the need for judges to ensure that all parties are treated fairly. The defense’s application for recusal raises important questions about the balance between judicial conduct and the right to a fair trial, which will likely be discussed in legal circles for years to come.

As the trial of Godwin Emefiele and Henry Omoile continues, the February 26, 2025, ruling on the application for recusal will be a pivotal moment in the proceedings. The decision will determine whether the trial will proceed under the current judge or whether a new judge will take over the case. Regardless of the outcome, the case is one of the most high-profile corruption trials in Nigeria’s recent history, with far-reaching implications for the country’s fight against financial crimes and the accountability of public officials.]

EXCERPT

All reactions:

221221