THE trial of Godwin Emefiele, a former Central Bank Governor, was halted today after his lawyers requested an adjournment after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) served them with additional proof of evidence in court.
The trial judge, Justice Rahman Oshodi, granted the adjournment after agreeing with the defence team that the reasons stated for it were valid.
The judge adjourned the hearing till May 9th to continue the cross-examination of the second prosecution witness, John Ayoh, a former CBN Director of Information Technology.
Emefiele is facing a 26-count indictment in court, along with his co-defendant Henry Omoile, for charges of $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion fraud brought against them by the EFCC.
At their arraignment on April 8, they both pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The trial began on April 12 with the evidence of the first prosecution witness, Monday Osazuwa, a CBN staff member who told the court how Emefiele had asked him to collect millions of dollars in cash in tranches on several occasions.
The second prosecution witness began his statement on April 29, and Justice Oshodi adjourned the trial until May 9, 2024, for a continuation of his testimony under cross-examination.
At the resumed proceedings, the prosecution team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Rotimi Oyedepo, informed the court that the second prosecution witness was there to continue his testimony.
He further informed the court that he had served on the defence team and provided more evidence in the form of statements from one John Adetola.
However, counsel for Emefiele Olalekan Ojo (SAN) objected. He told the court that Emefiele had not yet seen the documents served on him by the prosecution, and he requested the court to grant an adjournment so that he could review the documents and appropriately prepare for his client’s defence. He pointed out that justice hastened is justice crushed.
He added that “the defence may find anything useful in the additional proof of evidence to cross-examine the witness in the box so I humbly urge the court to adjourn this matter so that I can thoroughly go through it and study it” .
Adeyinka Kotoye (SAN), the attorney for the second defendant, agreed with the first defence counsel’s statement.
He urged the court to adjourn the case in the interest of justice and to give him enough time to review the additional proof of evidence. He requested the court to suspend the ‘trial by ambush’.
“I also apply to your lordship to mandate the prosecution to supply us all relevant materials. In the spirit of fairness, I urge your lordship to adjourn the case,” Kotoye said.
But the prosecution counsel, Oyedepo vehemently objected to the request for an adjournment by the defendants.
Oyedepo argued that the statements of Adetola which were served on the prosecution were those of the 5th prosecution witness listed in the proof of evidence which was contained in volume two of what was served on the defence since April 4.
He said: “In preparation for his testimony that will be coming up not today, not even on May 9, the prosecution, rather than wait for defence to formally place a demand on us on what is in the device (his mobile phone) decided to make same available to the defence out of diligence.
“I plead with the defence not to delay this case unnecessarily as we have a witness in the box who had given evidence and he is already being cross-examined by the first defence counsel.
“If defence is angry that I served them the proof of evidence today, we can withdraw it and serve same later day.
“The society is interested in this case, they are watching us that will this matter be adjourned based on the evidence of another man who is not the witness in the box. We are not rushing or crushing justice, rather, we are aiding the oil of justice to grind steadily.
“Expeditious determination of the case is of utmost importance and so we urge your lordship to allow the cross-examination,” Oyedepo said.
In his ruling, Justice Oshodi said he had considered the submissions of the parties and he was satisfied with the reasons given by defence for the adjournment.
“I have considered the conflicting submissions regarding whether I should adjourn for further continuation of trial. I am satisfied with the reasons given by defence.
“For the adjournment sought, I grant it. I adjourn to May 9, 2024, for continuation of trial,” the court held.
