Alleged procurement fraud: Court bars three prosecution witnesses in Emefiele’s trial

Justice Hamza Muazu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting at Maitama, Abuja, on Thursday, barred the two subpoenaed witnesses and one other sought to be called by the prosecution to testify in the ongoing trial of the immediate past governor, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, for alleged procurement fraud.

Emefiele is being prosecuted before the court by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (OAGF) in the case, marked FCT/HC/CR/577/2023, on an amended 20-count charge bordering on criminal breach of trust, conferring corrupt advantage, forgery, conspiracy to obtain by false pretence and obtaining money by false pretence while he was CBN governor.

He was alleged to have, among others, used his position as CBN governor to have awarded six different contracts for the supply of different vehicles to April 1616, in which one Sa’adatu Ramalan Yaro, a member of staff of CBN, is a director and shareholder, between 2018 and 2022, to the tune of N1,210,600,000, among other allegations.

The embattled Emefiele, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge preferred against him.

While ruling on the oral application made by the prosecuting counsel on the subpoenaed witnesses, Tommy Odama and Ifeanyi Omeke, the court held that the names of the witnesses were contained in its ruling of March 20, which struck out the prosecution’s additional proof of evidence in the case.

Justice Muazu noted that the ruling is now a subject of appeal filed by the prosecution pending before the Court of Appeal.

While holding that the court cannot change its own ruling by allowing the subpoenaed witnesses to testify in the case, the court held that the prosecution should wait for the decision of the appellate court on the witnesses.

Ruling on the objection on the eligibility of the 11th prosecution witness, Alvan Grumman raised by the counsel for Emefiele, Matthew Burkaa SAN, at the last sitting on October 22, the judge held that having struck the prosecution’s additional proof of evidence in its March 20 ruling, which the prosecution had filed an appeal against, the court cannot allow the witness to testify though his name was not specifically mentioned in the said additional proof of evidence

Justice Muazu held that the prosecution should rather wait for the decision of the appellate court to know if the witness is eligible to testify.

Justice Muazu subsequently adjourned the case to January 29-30, 2026, for continuation of the hearing.

Emefiele’s counsel, Burkaa, had at the last sitting objected to Grumman testifying in the case, hinging his argument on the fact that the name of the witness was contained in the additional proof of evidence filed by the prosecution, dated October 15, 2024, which the court in its ruling of March 20 struck out.

He told the court that the prosecution had sought the leave of the court to appeal the ruling striking out the additional proof of witness, through the motion marked M/4626/25, adding that the prosecution had taken a vertical proceeding and as such the witness could not testify in the case.

According to him, it was an abuse of court proceedings for the prosecution to take both a vertical and a horizontal approach by filing an appeal against the March 20 ruling.

Responding, the prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo SAN, told the court that the defendant’s motion, which the court ruled on on March 20, did not mention Grumman’s name but was specifically against Tommy Odama and Ifeanyi Omeke.

The senior advocate claimed that both Odama and Omeke had material facts to aid the court in a just determination of the case, as well as assist the prosecution in prosecuting its case.

According to him, Grumman had the material facts of the case before the court, being the investigator who investigated the matter.

ALSO READ TOP STORIES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE