ABUJA: A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Maitama, Abuja, has imposed a fine of ₦500,000 on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for causing delays in the ongoing trial of former Central Bank chief Godwin Emefiele.
The ruling was delivered on Tuesday by Justice Hamza Muazu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory after the anti-graft agency failed to produce its scheduled witness in court during the resumed hearing in Abuja.
Justice Muazu described the development as a setback to the speedy hearing earlier granted by the court and consequently ordered the EFCC to pay ₦500,000 as costs for the delay.
Read also:
The judge also warned the prosecution to ensure that its witnesses are present at the next sitting, stressing that the court would no longer tolerate unnecessary adjournments.
Emefiele, who served as governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria for nearly a decade, is currently facing a 20-count amended charge bordering on allegations of criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of office, conspiracy and obtaining money under false pretences.
The charges, marked FCT/HC/CR/577/2023, were filed by the EFCC and relate to several financial transactions allegedly carried out during his tenure.
Among the accusations is the claim that Emefiele obtained $6.23 million under the pretext of funding international election observers during the 2023 general election in Nigeria.
Prosecutors also allege that he improperly granted financial advantages to two companies April 1616 Nigeria Ltd and Architekon Nigeria Ltd through actions considered to be an abuse of his office.
Emefiele has consistently denied the allegations and is contesting the charges in court.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, the prosecuting counsel, Abba Mohammed (SAN), informed the court that the EFCC’s witness a Deputy Commissioner of Police, Elohor Edwin Okpoziakeo was unable to attend the hearing.
According to Mohammed, the witness had been duly notified of the court date but was attending a separate legal matter at the Gwagwalada Division of the FCT High Court. The case, he explained, involved a personal dispute with a commercial bank, where a garnishee order had reportedly been placed on the officer’s account.
The prosecutor told the court that efforts were being made to secure the witness’s attendance.
He added that a formal letter had been sent to the office of the Inspector-General of Police through police headquarters following a directive issued by the court the previous day.
Mohammed therefore requested an adjournment to enable the witness to appear and give testimony in the case.
However, the defense counsel, Matthew Burkaa (SAN), strongly opposed the request for another adjournment.
Burkaa cited Sections 396(3) and (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, which limit the number of adjournments allowed in criminal proceedings. Under the law, parties are generally permitted a maximum of five adjournments from arraignment to judgment.
The defence lawyer argued that the prosecution had already exhausted that allowance.
According to him, the EFCC had been granted about eight adjournments since the commencement of the trial, indicating poor management of its case.
Burkaa further pointed out that the absent witness had been listed in the prosecution’s proof of evidence as far back as January 2024, insisting that the agency had sufficient time to ensure his availability.
He therefore urged the court to reject the application for further adjournment.
In his ruling, Justice Muazu acknowledged that the provisions of the ACJA regarding adjournments are clear and meant to prevent delays in criminal trials.
However, he noted that the court still retains discretionary powers to grant adjournments where it is necessary in the interest of justice.
The judge also observed that the absent police officer was a key investigator in the case and therefore a material witness whose testimony could be crucial to the prosecution’s argument.
Relying on Section 396(6) of the ACJA, the court allowed the adjournment but sanctioned the prosecution for causing delays despite the case earlier being placed on an accelerated hearing schedule.
Justice Muazu consequently ordered the EFCC to pay ₦500,000 in costs before the next hearing.
The trial was subsequently adjourned to April 27 and April 28 for continuation of proceedings.
At the next sitting, the court expects the prosecution to produce its witness so that testimony and cross-examination can proceed without further interruptions.
The case remains one of Nigeria’s most closely watched corruption trials involving a former top financial regulator.
