EFCC witness tells court there is no evidence Emefiele benefited from $6.2 million fraud – THIS UPDATE

By Victor Osula, Abuja

An Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) witness, Police Commissioner Okpoziakpo Eloho, on Thursday told the Abuja High Court that investigators found no evidence that former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, Godwin Emefiele, personally benefited from the disputed $6.2 million at the center of the criminal charges against him.

Eloho, who testified as the 14th prosecution witness (PW14), made the disclosure while being cross-examined by Emefiele’s lawyer, Matthew Burkaa, SAN.

The EFCC is prosecuting Emefiele on charges bordering on criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of office, conspiracy to obtain by false pretenses and obtain money by false pretenses allegedly committed during his tenure as CBN governor.

The anti-corruption agency specifically accused Emefiele of bestowing corrupt benefits on two companies: April 1616 Nigeria Ltd and Architekon Nigeria Ltd. The former CBN governor has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

During Thursday’s proceedings, Eloho, who led the police investigation into the case, told the court that Emefiele, in his statement to investigators, denied authorizing the release of the $6.2 million to any individual.

According to the witness, the former CBN governor also denied receiving any correspondence from the then Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Boss Mustapha, or following up on any letter purportedly from the SGF office regarding the release of the funds.

During cross-examination, Eloho confirmed that one Jibril Abubakar appeared before the commission of investigation and admitted to having collected $6.2 million from the Abuja branch of the CBN.

The witness also told the court that none of the people interviewed during the investigation alleged that Emefiele benefited from the money in any way.

He revealed that although Abubakar claimed to be a staff member of the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, investigators later established that he was never employed in the SGF office.

Eloho also said he was unaware whether Abubakar had been prosecuted despite allegedly confessing to raising the funds.

The witness further testified that Bashirudeen Maishanu, a CBN staff member, was also interrogated during the investigation and allegedly confessed to stealing the money.

When shown several documents, including official correspondence relating to the processing, approval and release of the funds, Eloho admitted that established procedures within the apex bank had been violated.

He explained that under the administrative hierarchy of the CBN, official correspondence from the governor would normally be routed through a deputy governor before proceeding up the chain of command.

“I remember that on December 13, 2023, we were at Kuje Correctional Center where the accused gave his statement in relation to the money,” the witness told the court.

On the allegation that the signature of the former SGF was forged, Eloho said it was the Special Investigator, Jim Obaze, who recorded the statement of Chief Mustapha, adding that he was present when the former SGF insisted that the signature on the document was not his.

The witness further acknowledged that although the EFCC conducted a forensic examination of Mustapha’s signature to verify the alleged forgery, it did not carry out a similar forensic analysis on Emefiele’s signature.

“It would have been desirable to carry out a forensic examination on Emefiele’s signature similar to that carried out with Chief Mustapha,” he admitted.

The proceedings were briefly halted during prosecution re-examination after the EFCC lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, sought to present documents which the defense lawyer argued were not related to the $6.2 million transaction.

Burkaa objected, citing Section 215(3) of the Evidence Act, arguing that the witness was testifying specifically about the alleged $6.2 million fraud and should not have been questioned about matters outside the scope of cross-examination.

“The matter is not relevant and cannot be admitted to reconsideration,” Burkaa said.

In a short ruling, Judge Hamza Muazu found there was no ambiguity about the document the witness was referring to, but said he would not allow the witness to continue his investigation in open court.

The judge then adjourned the matter to Friday for continuation of the trial.

Post views:
156