The Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, on Friday admitted in evidence a Supreme Court judgment tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the ongoing trial of former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, over the forfeiture of properties allegedly linked to him.
However, the trial judge, Justice Rahman Oshodi, ruled that although the judgment was admissible as evidence, it must not be used for or against any of the parties in the criminal proceedings.
Ruling on the arguments canvassed by the prosecution, led by the Federal Director of Public Prosecutions (FDPP), Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, and the defence team led by Olalekan Ojo, SAN, Justice Oshodi held that the document was a public document and a certified true copy of a Supreme Court decision.
The judge consequently admitted it as an exhibit but restricted the purpose for which it could be used.
He said: “The judgment is a public document, and it is a certified true copy of the Supreme Court decision. It would be accepted as an exhibit (in rem), but cannot be used in the case either for or against any party.”
The implication of the ruling is that the parties cannot rely on the judgment to establish the guilt or innocence of either defendant in the ongoing trial.
According to the judge, the document met the requirements for admissibility under the law.
On the issue of service, Justice Oshodi referred to the record of proceedings of November 12, 2026,which, he said, showed that counsel had been served with the document.
He held that the requirement of service had therefore been satisfied.
On the defence's objection that the prosecution tendered only the lead judgment without the other separate judgments of the Supreme Court justices, the judge said a similar issue had been considered by the Court of Appeal in Matthias Sikiri and Others v. Nketchukwu Onyema and Others (2021) LPELR-56552(CA).
In that case, a certified true copy of a Supreme Court judgment in Appeal No. SC.151/200 was admitted as Exhibit A, although it contained only the judgment of the presiding justice.
The appellant subsequently challenged the document on appeal, arguing that it was incomplete, inadmissible and unreliable.
However, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument, noting that the appellant had not alleged any discrepancy in the judgment as delivered by the lower court.
Justice Oshodi also referred to the decision in Avacha and Others v. Fawole, in which the Supreme Court held that the leading judgment represents the judgment of the court.
The judge said the Court of Appeal consequently dismissed the argument that the absence of the other judgments rendered the document incomplete or inadmissible.
He added that he was mindful of the defence's concerns about the use of a Civil Supreme Court judgment in a criminal trial but said those concerns were addressed by limiting the purpose for which the document could be used.
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in David Itauma v. Friday Jasi, an unreported decision identified as LPELR-1557(SC), Justice Oshodi said judgments tendered during trial were intended to establish and confine what was actually decided in the previous proceedings, rather than to be used for or against any of the parties.
He also referred to other judicial authorities, including Igrego v. Adeogbo (1992), Ok and Ugochukwu (1991) and Oteji (1999).
Quoting the decision of Karibo, JSC, at page 38, paragraph 60, in David Itauma v. Friday Jasi, the judge reiterated the principle governing the use of previous court judgments in subsequent proceedings.
Quoting the decision of Karibo, JSC, at page 38, paragraph 60, in David Itauma v. Friday Jasi, the judge reiterated the principle governing the use of previous court judgments in subsequent proceedings.
Consequently, Justice Oshodi overruled the defence objection and admitted the certified copy of the Supreme Court judgment as Exhibit A, stressing that it could not be used as evidence for or against any party in the case.
Earlier, counsel to the first defendant, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, had objected to the prosecution's attempt to tender the Supreme Court judgment relating to the forfeiture of properties.
Ojo argued that the document was not only inadmissible but also irrelevant to the charges preferred against his client.
He further contended that the judgment was incomplete because the prosecution had presented only the lead judgment without the other judgments
He further contended that the judgment was incomplete because the prosecution had presented only the lead judgment without the other judgments delivered by the Supreme Court justices.
The defence counsel also argued that the judgment arose from non-conviction-based civil forfeiture proceedings and could not properly be introduced as evidence in the criminal trial.
He cited several judicial authorities and provisions of the Evidence Act and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) in support of his objection.
Counsel to the second defendant, A.M. Kotoye, SAN, aligned himself with Ojo's submissions and urged the court to reject the document.
However, in his response, Oyedepo described the issue as straightforward, insisting that the document was a certified true copy of a Supreme Court judgment and therefore satisfied the
However, in his response, Oyedepo described the issue as straightforward, insisting that the document was a certified true copy of a Supreme Court judgment and therefore satisfied the statutory requirements for admissibility.
He argued that the provisions of Sections 103 and 104 of the Evidence Act had been complied with and that the purpose for which the court might eventually use the document should not determine its admissibility.
According to him, the fact that only the lead judgment was tendered did not affect its admissibility, as the issue related to the evaluation of evidence rather than the admissibility of the document.
On the argument concerning non-conviction-based forfeiture, Oyedepo maintained that none of the authorities cited by the defence rendered a certified true copy of a judgment inadmissible.
He further submitted that the judgment was relevant, even if its connection to the issues in the criminal trial was indirect.
Citing Sections 59, 64 and 65 of the Evidence Act, as well as Section 174, he argued that the provisions relied upon by the second defendant did not support the defence's objection.
Oyedepo also contended that issue estoppel could not arise in the criminal proceedings merely because the Supreme Court's decision emanated from non-conviction-based forfeiture proceedings.
He maintained that the fact that the decision was delivered after the commencement of the criminal trial did not render it irrelevant.
Emefiele is standing trial alongside Henry Omoile on a 19-count charge bordering on alleged abuse of office, receiving gratification, accepting gifts through agents, corruption and fraudulent property transactions involving about $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion.
Omoile is separately facing a three-count charge over allegations of receiving unlawful gifts in connection with transactions involving the CBN.
Both defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against them by the EFCC.
The court adjourned further hearing to December 17 at 12 noon, December 18 at 10am and January 11 at 9am.
No comments:
Post a Comment