Politics
EFCC Witness Tells Court No Evidence Emefiele Benefited From $6.2m Fraud – THISAGE
From Victor Osula, Abuja
An Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) witness, Commissioner of Police Okpoziakpo Eloho, on Thursday told an Abuja High Court that investigators found no evidence that former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, personally benefited from the controversial $6.2 million at the centre of the criminal charges against him.
Eloho, who testified as the 14th prosecution witness (PW14), made the disclosure while being cross-examined by Emefiele’s counsel, Matthew Burkaa, SAN.
The EFCC is prosecuting Emefiele on charges bordering on criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of office, conspiracy to obtain by false pretence, and obtaining money by false pretence allegedly committed during his tenure as CBN governor.
The anti-graft agency specifically accused Emefiele of conferring corrupt advantages on two companies — April 1616 Nigeria Ltd and Architekon Nigeria Ltd. The former CBN governor has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
At Thursday’s proceedings, Eloho, who led the police investigation into the case, told the court that Emefiele, in his statement to investigators, denied authorising the release of the $6.2 million to any individual.
According to the witness, the former CBN governor also denied receiving any correspondence from the then Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Boss Mustapha, or acting on any letter purportedly originating from the SGF’s office regarding the release of the funds.
Under cross-examination, Eloho confirmed that one Jibril Abubakar appeared before the investigative panel and admitted collecting the $6.2 million from the Abuja branch of the CBN.
The witness further told the court that none of the individuals interviewed during the investigation stated that Emefiele benefited from the money in any way.
He disclosed that although Abubakar claimed to be a staff member in the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, investigators later established that he was never employed in the SGF’s office.
Eloho also said he was unaware whether Abubakar had been prosecuted despite allegedly confessing to collecting the funds.
The witness further testified that Bashirudeen Maishanu, a member of staff of the CBN, was also interrogated during the investigation and allegedly confessed to stealing the money.
When shown several exhibits, including official correspondence relating to the processing, approval, and release of the funds, Eloho admitted that laid-down procedures within the apex bank were breached.
He explained that under the CBN’s administrative hierarchy, official correspondence from the governor should ordinarily be routed through a deputy governor before proceeding down the chain of command.
“I recall that on Dec. 13, 2023, we were at the Kuje Correctional Centre where the defendant made his statement in relation to the money,” the witness told the court.
On the allegation that the signature of the former SGF had been forged, Eloho said it was the Special Investigator, Jim Obaze, who recorded Boss Mustapha’s statement, adding that he was present when the former SGF insisted that the signature on the document was not his.
The witness further acknowledged that although the EFCC conducted a forensic examination of Mustapha’s signature to verify the alleged forgery, it did not carry out a similar forensic analysis on Emefiele’s signature.
“It would have been desirable to carry out a similar forensic examination on Emefiele’s signature the way it was done to Boss Mustapha,” he admitted.
Proceedings were briefly interrupted during the prosecution’s re-examination after EFCC counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, sought to tender exhibits which defence counsel argued were unrelated to the $6.2 million transaction.
Burkaa objected, citing Section 215(3) of the Evidence Act, arguing that the witness was testifying specifically on the alleged $6.2 million fraud and should not be questioned on issues outside the scope of the cross-examination.
“The question is not relevant and cannot be permitted in re-examination,” Burkaa argued.
In a brief ruling, Justice Hamza Muazu held that there was no ambiguity regarding the document referred to by the witness but said he would not permit the witness to continue his investigation in open court.
The judge subsequently adjourned the matter until Friday for the continuation of the trial.
Post Views:
25
