Wale Igbintade

Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Special Offences Court in Lagos, yesterday, granted former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Mr. Godwin Emefiele’s application to appeal the court’s decision on its jurisdiction over charges related to alleged misuse of his office.

Judge Dismisses Allegations of Bias, Continues However, Justice Oshodi declined to recuse himself from the ongoing trial of Emefiele.

On January 8, 2025, Justice Oshodi struck out four out of the 26 charges against Emefiele, citing that the alleged offenses were outside the court’s jurisdiction.

 Emefiele, through his lawyer Olalekan Ojo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), challenged the court’s authority to hear some of the charges, asserting that he could not be tried in a state high court for alleged offenses filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Emefiele is facing 26 charges related to alleged abuse of office, leading to significant financial losses. His co-defendant, Henry Omoile, is also on trial for related offenses, including the unlawful acceptance of gifts.

In his application, Emefiele argued that Counts 1-4 were unconstitutional and lacked legal foundation.

He requested the court to strike them out, asserting that the alleged offenses occurred outside its jurisdiction.

Ruling on the application, Justice Oshodi upheld the striking out of Counts one to four, ruling that the allocation of foreign exchange without bidding, as described in those charges, was not punishable under Nigerian law.

However, the court maintained its jurisdiction over Counts 8-26, dismissing Emefiele’s objection, affirming the EFCC had established sufficient territorial nexus for these charges to proceed.

Emefiele, dissatisfied with the court’s decision, filed an application seeking leave to appeal, in accordance with Section 242(1) of the Nigerian Constitution.

The application requests permission to appeal on substantial legal grounds, including matters of both law and fact.

Justice Oshodi granted the application, emphasising that it would serve the interest of justice and allow the Court of Appeal to resolve the case on its merits.

Meanwhile, Justice Oshodi declined to recuse himself from the ongoing trial.

The judge stated that the allegations of bias made against him were unfounded.

Emefiele, through his lead counsel, Ojo, had requested that Justice Oshodi step down, citing alleged bias in the trial.

Ojo had also accused the judge of allowing a leading question, which the defence had previously objected to.

In his ruling, Justice Oshodi rejected the allegation of bias, noting that the claims had not been substantiated by either of the defendants.

The judge explained that judicial bias alone was not sufficient grounds for recusal, stressing that it must be personal or based on extrajudicial factors.

The court addressed the oral applications made by senior counsel Ojo (representing the first defendant), and Kazeem Gbadamosi, SAN (representing the second defendant), on 24 February 2025.

Both counsel had urged the court to recuse itself from the case on the grounds of bias.

However, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, counsel for the prosecution, opposed the applications, arguing that they were unmeritorious and unsupported by an affidavit.

The allegations of bias arose from the court’s ruling, in which it allowed a question to be put to a witness (PW7) despite an objection from the first defendant.

The ruling stated, in part: “Having considered the competing submissions, it is clear that the question put to PW7 is a leading question.

“However, under section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, leading questions may be allowed on matters that the witness has sufficiently addressed. For this reason, I will allow the question.”

In his detailed analysis of judicial bias and recusal, Justice Oshodi referenced key legal precedents.

He explained that judicial bias, in itself, was insufficient to justify recusal unless it was personal or based on some extrajudicial reason.

He cited the case of Kenon v. Tekam (2001), which defines bias as, “an opinion or feeling in favor of one side in a dispute or argument, resulting in the likelihood that the court will be unable to hold an even scale.”

Further, he referred to Babarinde’s case, where the Supreme Court rejected allegations of judicial bias, emphasising that comments made by the judge during a trial-within-trial were irrelevant to the substantive case once the confessional statements were expunged.

Justice Oshodi concluded that, based on these principles, the allegations of bias in the current case were not substantiated.

Therefore, the applications for recusal by the first and second defendants were refused.

Emefiele is standing trial on a 19-count charge involving the receipt of gratification and corrupt demands, brought by the EFCC. His co-defendant, Henry Omoile, faces a three-count charge for unlawful acceptance of gifts by agents.