Godwin Emefiele, the troubled former governor of the Central Bank, challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear his case, but the Ikeja Special Offenses Court rejected his appeal on Wednesday.
Mr. Emefiele was charged with 26 counts by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for allegedly abusing his position, which led to losses of $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion.
Henry Omoile, his co-defendant, is on trial for a number of connected offenses, including accepting gifts illegally.
Citing pertinent authorities, Justice Rahman Oshodi ruled on Wednesday that the court had jurisdiction to try Mr. Emefiele on the issue.
Therefore, he rejected Mr. Emefiele’s appeal and determined that, based on a number of facts in the proof of evidence that is attached to the case file, the EFCC had established territorial jurisdiction on charges eight through twenty-six.
However, the court rejected counts one through four of the charge that involved abuse of office.
According to him, there is no legal penalty for allocating foreign exchange without a bid, which was the focus of counts one through four.
According to Oshodi, “no written legislation defines the arbitrary distribution of foreign exchange as an offense. The objection to counts one through four is successfully raised and is so dismissed. The argument contesting the territorial jurisdiction of the court over counts eight through twenty-six is rejected. In this case, the prosecution has sufficiently proved territorial linkage.
The judge then decided that the matter should go to trial and postponed it to February 24 in order to continue the trial.
Olalekan Ojo (SAN), Mr. Emefiele’s attorney, contended on December 12, 2024, that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case in Lagos.
Mr. Ojo argued that the court’s jurisdiction did not extend to the accused offenses, such as abuse of office.
He claimed that Mr. Emefiele’s conduct were not legally recognized offenses and that the indictment violated Section 36(12) of the constitution.
According to him, issues on the Exclusive Legislative List were outside the Lagos State House of Assembly’s legislative purview.
Therefore, Mr. Ojo claimed that Section 73 of the Lagos State, 2011 Criminal Law, which was the basis for counts one through four, could not be applied extraterritorially to any claims of official abuse made by Mr. Emefiele.
The senior counsel contended that a court’s territorial jurisdiction related to the geographic area over which its authority may be exercised.
According to him, the court cannot act beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
He sought the court to dismiss charges one through four of the 18 modified information submitted on April 4, 2024, claiming that the offenses happened outside the court’s jurisdiction.
In his counter affidavits, EFCC Counsel Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) claimed that the court had the authority to hear the case.
Mr Oyedepo said that the alleged offences were commercial and financial in character, and thus fell under the jurisdiction of the EFCC.
He further stated that the evidence in support of the facts established Lagos as the proper site for the trial.
Mr Oyedepo further argued that the case fell firmly within the court’s jurisdiction because the offenses were committed within the court’s territorial reach.
He contended that the evidence and witness testimony led to Lagos as the appropriate venue for the trial.
He further stated that the objections submitted by Mr Emefiele’s legal team were not supported by facts or evidence.
He further stated that the evidence in support of the facts established Lagos as the proper site for the trial.
Mr Oyedepo further argued that the case fell firmly within the court’s jurisdiction because the offenses were committed within the court’s territorial reach.
He contended that the evidence and witness testimony led to Lagos as the appropriate venue for the trial.
He further stated that the objections submitted by Mr Emefiele’s legal team were not supported by facts or evidence.
