A prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, has informed the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Abuja, that $2.045 million in cash and several property title documents recovered from Emefiele’s lawyer were indeed the property of the former apex bank chief. The witness, David Oyesina Jaiyeoba, identified as the 12th prosecution witness (PW12) and an investigation officer with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), gave his testimony on Friday before Justice Hamza Muazu.

Led in evidence by the prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, Director of Public Prosecution, Jaiyeoba explained that the investigation into Emefiele was initiated following a report sent to the EFCC by the Inter-Agency Task Force, which is headed by the Department of State Services (DSS). During the investigation, several individuals, companies, and government agencies were interviewed, leading to significant findings, including the recovery of numerous assets and cash, which were subsequently forfeited to the Federal Government.

The witness detailed that the $2.045 million was traced to one Eric Ocheme Odo (also referred to as Eric Ocheme Udoh), who served as Emefiele’s personal assistant during his tenure at the CBN. The cash, along with multiple property title documents, was specifically recovered from Zenith Bank Plc Headquarters in Lagos, in the possession of Mr. Collins Omeife (also referred to as Collins Omeke), who is Emefiele’s lawyer. Collins Omeife confirmed during interrogation that the cash and the properties belonged to the defendant, Godwin Emefiele.

Further investigations into Collins Omeife revealed that he had been acquiring and perfecting title documents for properties strictly on the instructions of Emefiele. Omeife disclosed that Emefiele habitually provided him with cash sums, primarily in United States Dollars, for these property acquisitions. These funds were often delivered through Emefiele’s personal assistant, Eric Ocheme Odo. A portion of these funds was also utilized for the renovation of some of Emefiele’s existing assets. Emefiele’s ownership of these assets was subsequently confirmed when he was invited to show cause why they should not be forfeited to the Nigerian Government.

Jaiyeoba’s testimony also covered Emefiele’s alleged approval of payments for contracts awarded to several companies, including Architekon Nigeria Limited (also referred to as Architeco Nigeria Limited). This company was promoted by MacCombo Omoile, Emefiele’s brother-in-law, and Margaret Omoile, his wife. Specific exhibits were presented to the court to substantiate these claims:

• Exhibit A1: An internal CBN memorandum authorizing payment for the CBN governor’s residential house located in Ikoyi, Lagos.
• Exhibit A2: A contract document for the landscaping of the aforementioned Ikoyi residence, executed by Architekon Nigeria Limited.
• Exhibit A5: An internal memo requesting and receiving approval from Emefiele for the payment of N97,998,416.38 to Architekon Nigeria Limited for the supply of office furniture to the CBN.
• Exhibit A8: Another internal CBN memorandum concerning a contract for the provision of dedicated power at the CBN governor’s residence, supported by an interim payment certificate, and also approved by the defendant.

The witness further elaborated on the correspondence between the EFCC and Zenith Bank Plc concerning Emefiele’s bank accounts. Exhibits ED1, ED2, and ED3 were identified as the responses received from the bank. Notably, Exhibit ED3 detailed a debit entry of N4 million on Emefiele’s account (account no 2020000064) dated January 13, 2015, which was paid to Architekon Nigeria Limited.

During the court session, the defense counsel, Matthew Burkaaa, did not oppose the application for adjournment but raised concerns regarding the repetition of evidence, noting that an earlier witness (PW7) had already identified approvals related to these transactions. Burkaaa warned that the defense would object if this trend of repetitive evidence continued in subsequent sittings. In response, the prosecution asserted that the consistency of its case warranted this approach and urged the court to allow it to present its case as it deemed fit. Trial Judge Hamza Muazu, while expressing some concern that the prosecution appeared “too careful” and often required prompting, stated he would accommodate their approach. The matter was subsequently adjourned to March 5, 16, and 17, 2026, for the continuation of the trial.