The trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Godwin Emefiele, took a fresh turn on Thursday as an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission investigator, Mr Alvan Gurumnaan, told the court that Emefiele allegedly used associates, including a lawyer, to acquire multi-billion-naira properties through proxies while in office.
Gurumnaan, who was testifying as the seventh prosecution witness before the Ikeja Special Offences Court, said the properties allegedly linked to him had been recovered in Lagos, Delta, Ogun and Abuja.
He said investigators recovered more than $2m in cash from the office of a lawyer, Ifeanyi Omeke, who allegedly admitted to acting as a front for Emefiele and receiving money on his behalf.
The witness gave the evidence while continuing his testimony before Justice Rahman Oshodi during the trial of Emefiele and his co-defendant, Henry Omoile.
Emefiele is facing a 19-count charge bordering on alleged gratification, corrupt demands and abuse of office involving transactions valued at $4.5bn and N2.8bn.
Omoile is standing trial on a three-count charge of alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts.
Led in evidence by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), Gurumnaan said Emefiele’s statement was recorded during an investigation by the special operations team he led.
He alleged that Emefiele used his position as CBN governor to create a system that made it difficult for ordinary Nigerians and business owners to access foreign exchange for their legitimate businesses.
According to him, the situation forced some businessmen to resort to special arrangements allegedly imposed by the former CBN governor before they could access foreign exchange.
The witness said, “One of those examples was how a company had to pay millions of dollars to the first defendant through his staff, Monday Osazuwa.
“Osazuwa admitted to us in the course of the investigation that he received about $17m from the company and gave it to the second defendant sometime.
“The second defendant was the one who later took the money to the first defendant.”
Gurumnaan further cited the case of Source Computer, alleging that its managing director was compelled to pay money to Emefiele before the company’s contract fees were released.
The investigator subsequently detailed properties allegedly acquired by Emefiele through associates, claiming that their value exceeded his legitimate earnings as CBN governor.
He told the court that several judgments had been obtained in favour of the EFCC, leading to the forfeiture of assets linked to the former CBN governor and estimated at hundreds of billions of naira.
He said, “The first defendant used associates who also admitted to receiving money on his behalf. One of them is a lawyer called Ifeanyin Omeke, whose office our investigation led us to, and a sum of over $2m in cash was recovered.
“This same Omeke serves as secretary to several companies, and he admitted to being a front for the first defendant.
“We recovered a set of twin duplexes in Lekki Phase 1 and also two mansions on Queen’s Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos.”
The witness added that Emefiele was given an opportunity to respond to some of the findings during the investigation and the recording of his statement but did not address the allegations.
He said further investigations uncovered other properties allegedly acquired through proxies, including a factory under construction in Agbor, Delta State, Emefiele’s hometown, which he said had been forfeited to the Federal Government.
Gurumnaan also alleged that Emefiele acquired a property, a block of eight flats, in Adekunle Lawal Street, Ikoyi, which previously belonged to the Nigerian Printing and Minting Company, where the former CBN governor had served as board chairman.
He further told the court that investigators recovered another warehouse allegedly belonging to Emefiele in Ogun State, on the outskirts of Lagos.
The warehouse, he said, contained several containers estimated to be worth hundreds of billions of naira.
Gurumnaan also listed an 11-storey building under construction in Ikoyi, comprising about 94 luxury flats, as well as an industrial park under construction in Amwuo Odofin, Lagos.
Others are an estate of approximately 750 housing units in the Lokogoma District of Abuja among the properties allegedly linked to the former CBN governor.
However, Emefiele’s lead counsel, Mr Ojo Olalekan (SAN), and Omoile’s lead counsel, Mr Kazeem Gbadamosi, objected to the testimony, arguing that the prosecution was introducing facts outside the proof of evidence served on the defendants.
Counsel for the first defendant submitted that the prosecution could not introduce additional facts through its witness without first filing and serving additional proof of evidence on the defence.
He argued that the witness’s claims about the properties and the alleged recovery of money from the lawyer were not contained in the proof of evidence.
Relying on Section 251 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2015, the lawyer maintained that the provision prescribed the contents of an information and imposed a mandatory obligation on the prosecution.
He further argued that the issue was not whether the defence would have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness but whether the prosecution was complying with the law.
Counsel for the second defendant aligned himself with the objection, arguing that an investigating officer could only testify about findings connected to the charges before the court.
He maintained that the properties mentioned by the witness had no established connection with the offences for which the defendants were being tried.
Responding, prosecution counsel argued that the witness was entitled to testify about the findings of his investigation, particularly as they related to the alleged acquisition of assets with proceeds of gratification.
He submitted that the evidence was relevant because the prosecution’s case was that Emefiele allegedly used funds received as gratification to acquire properties beyond his legitimate sources of income.
The prosecution also argued that the defendants would not suffer any prejudice because they had the opportunity to challenge the witness’s testimony during cross-examination.
In overruling the objection, the judge cited the Supreme Court decision in Ugwuma v. The State (2018), which held that an investigating police officer could give evidence about what he personally saw, witnessed or discovered in the course of an investigation.
The judge consequently allowed the witness to continue his testimony, with the defence retaining the right to cross-examine him.
During further testimony, the witness sought to identify a certified true copy of a Supreme Court judgment relating to some of the properties mentioned.
However, the defence raised another objection, arguing that the document had not been sufficiently disclosed ahead of the proceedings to enable them to prepare their response.
The judge deferred consideration of the document and the defence’s objection until the next sitting.
The court subsequently adjourned the case until November 13, 2026, for continuation of proceedings and further consideration of the document.
Source: