Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja has fixed February 26 to deliver a ruling on whether he will step down from presiding over the ongoing trial of the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele.
The decision follows a request by Emefiele’s lawyer, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), who accused the judge of bias and demanded his recusal.
Emefiele, alongside Herry Omoile, is facing trial by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over allegations of accepting gratification, receiving gifts through agents, engaging in corruption, and fraudulent property transactions.
The EFCC also accused the former apex bank chief of conferring undue advantages on associates, in violation of the Corrupt Practices Act 2000. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty.
At Monday’s proceedings, the EFCC’s prosecutor, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), continued the examination of the seventh prosecution witness, John Adetola, who had previously testified that he received $400,000 from John Ayoh and handed it over to Emefiele.
During the session, Oyedepo sought to have the witness confirm a WhatsApp message, reportedly sent by Omoile, which was printed from Adetola’s phone.
However, the defense team objected, arguing that the document was only for identification purposes and had not been admitted as an exhibit.
Justice Oshodi dismissed the objection, ruling that the witness could read from the document. He cited Section 224 of the Evidence Act, which allows leading questions on undisputed or introductory facts.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Ojo accused the judge of unfairness, stating, “The court’s decision raises serious concerns of bias, whether conscious or unconscious. For the sake of justice, My Lord should recuse himself from this case.” Other defense lawyers aligned with this position.
However, Oyedepo countered the claim, arguing that the proceedings had been conducted fairly.
“This court has ruled against us multiple times, yet we have not alleged bias. The defense has failed to present any factual basis for this claim. An application of this nature cannot be made orally, and from all indications, it appears to be a tactic to delay the trial,” he said.
