A former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, has urged the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Abuja, to discharge him from an alleged $6.23 million fraud case, insisting that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences charged against him.
Emefiele’s position came as the EFCC, on Tuesday, urged Justice Hamza Mu’azu to dismiss his no-case submission, arguing that the evidence presented by the prosecution had established a prima facie case requiring him to enter his defence.
The former CBN governor is facing an amended 20-count charge bordering on alleged criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of office, conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretence, including allegations relating to the withdrawal of $6.23 million and the conferment of corrupt advantage in the award of CBN contracts.
Opposing the application, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, argued that a no-case submission was intended to determine whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to warrant a defence, rather than to establish the defendant’s guilt or assess the credibility of witnesses.
He maintained that requiring Emefiele to enter his defence would not amount to compelling him to prove his innocence but would afford him the opportunity to respond to the allegations raised by the prosecution’s evidence.
On the contract-related charges, Oyedepo identified the essential elements of the alleged offences as Emefiele’s status as a public officer, his alleged use of that position and the conferment of corrupt advantage on his relations or associates.
The prosecution told the court that exhibits bearing Emefiele’s approval signatures, alongside corporate records, linked him to companies associated with his wife and brother-in-law, including Architekon Nigeria Limited.
Oyedepo also argued that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence of alleged undue advantage involving a company associated with Sa’adatu Ramalan Yaro, whom he described as an associate of the former CBN governor.
According to the prosecution, the contracts under consideration were valued at between $6 million and $10 million but were allegedly awarded without being subjected to the Major Contracts Tender Board, which it said was established under the Public Procurement Act, 2007.
Oyedepo explained that contracts exceeding $1 million were required to be reviewed by the board, chaired by a CBN deputy governor, before recommendations were forwarded to the governor for approval.
He said the board was also responsible for checking whether CBN staff members served as directors of companies bidding for contracts.
The prosecution alleged that bypassing the board prevented the necessary scrutiny and created an opportunity for the procurement process to be manipulated.
Citing the testimony of a procurement department staff member, identified as PW10, Oyedepo said at least three companies submitted bids for each contract, but officials were allegedly instructed to process the bids in favour of a company linked to Emefiele’s associates.
He further alleged that the company was given information about the CBN’s in-house prices and subsequently submitted bids quoting the exact amounts, thereby denying other prospective bidders a fair opportunity.
“The ingredient of the offence is the unfairness of the process,” Oyedepo told the court.
The prosecution argued that the execution of the contracts and the alleged absence of direct payments to Emefiele did not defeat its case, insisting that the alleged unfairness in the procurement process was central to the charges.
Oyedepo further told the court that the company had existed for years without securing contracts of the type under consideration until Emefiele became CBN governor, after which it allegedly received all 45 contracts being examined in the case.
He also relied on evidence of transfers from Emefiele’s personal account to the company’s account, arguing that the transactions demonstrated his knowledge of the company and its directors.
The prosecution maintained that Emefiele’s approval of the contracts was distinct from the recommendations made by officials and argued that he should have referred the contracts back to the board rather than approve them.
“The recommendation would never be an approval,” Oyedepo said.
He urged the court to distinguish the judicial authority cited by the defence, arguing that it concerned money laundering and the proof of a predicate offence, whereas the present charges centred on the alleged conferment of corrupt advantage through an unfair procurement process.
On the alleged $6.23 million withdrawal, Oyedepo said the funds were withdrawn from the CBN between February and around June, before Emefiele’s removal from office, purportedly on the strength of letters attributed to former President Muhammadu Buhari and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Boss Mustapha.
The prosecution alleged that evidence from witnesses, including Mustapha and a forensic analyst, showed that the letters used to facilitate the release of the funds were forged.
Oyedepo also relied on the testimony of PW15, who reportedly told the court that the withdrawal triggered an automatic system notification to Emefiele because the relevant account went into debit.
According to the prosecution, Emefiele allegedly took no action despite the notification, a circumstance it argued raised questions of criminal negligence and breach of trust, given his alleged dominion and control over the funds.
The prosecution further cited testimony that the money was released to an individual on Emefiele’s instructions and that part of it was allegedly used to renovate one of his properties, while the balance was recovered from the individual.
Responding to the defence’s argument that the prosecution’s case was speculative, Oyedepo maintained that the evidence went beyond conjecture.
“There is a difference between speculation and inferences drawn from legally admissible evidence,” he said.
He also argued that where a forged document was used to facilitate a fraudulent transaction and the resulting benefit was traceable to a defendant, the circumstances could support an inference that the defendant forged the document or procured its forgery.
On the absence of a forensic examination of Emefiele’s signature, the prosecution maintained that this did not automatically invalidate the forgery allegation, arguing that the court could compare the disputed signatures in accordance with the law.
Oyedepo also drew the court’s attention to a Supreme Court decision concerning approximately $2 million and certain properties, urging it to consider the decision in assessing the prosecution’s case.
However, Emefiele’s counsel, Matthew Burkaa, SAN, urged the court to discharge his client, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
“My lord, in the entirety of the charge, the prosecution failed to prove that he had conferred undue advantage on his wife and his associates,” Burkaa said.
The court said the date for ruling on the no-case submission would be communicated to the parties.
Strengthen the no-case submission lead
