Alleged $4.5bn Fraud: Court Admits Supreme Court Judgment as Exhibit in Emefiele’s Trial

Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, has admitted a Certified True Copy (CTC) of a Supreme Court judgment as evidence in the ongoing trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, and his co-defendant, Henry Omoile, over an alleged $4.5 billion fraud.
​Emefiele is standing trial on a 19-count charge brought by the Lagos Zonal Directorate 1 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), bordering on receiving gratification and making corrupt demands while serving as CBN Governor.
​At the resumed proceedings on Friday, November 13, 2026, a prosecution witness, Gurumnaan, continued his evidence-in-chief under examination by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, who appeared alongside B. B. Bilkisu, C. C. Okezie, Z. B. Atiku, and F. Orilade. During the session, Oyedepo tendered the Certified True Copy of the apex court’s judgment before the court.
​Defence Objections Overruled
​Counsel to the first defendant, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, vehemently opposed the admissibility of the document, urging the court to reject it on several grounds:
​Panel Composition: Ojo argued that the document could not be regarded as a valid Supreme Court judgment because it was signed by only four justices, whereas decisions of the apex court are ordinarily delivered by a panel of five or seven justices.
​Relevance to the Case: Citing the testimony of the seventh prosecution witness (PW7), Ojo further contended that the judgment emanated from non-conviction proceedings and was therefore irrelevant to the prosecution’s case.
​Aligning himself with Ojo’s submissions, counsel to the second defendant, Adeyinka Kotoye, SAN, urged the court to reject the document, arguing that the prosecution’s attempt to introduce it after proceedings had commenced rendered it inadmissible.
​In response, Oyedepo maintained that the CTC was a duly certified copy of a Supreme Court decision and satisfied all statutory requirements under Sections 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act, insisting that the signature issue did not affect its admissibility.
​In a brief ruling, Justice Oshodi held that a Supreme Court judgment is a public document and that all necessary certification requirements had been met. He consequently admitted the document into evidence as Exhibit 10.
​Justice Oshodi adjourned the case until December 17 and 18, 2026, as well as January 11, 14, and 19, 2027, for continuation of trial.