The Court of Appeal Lagos Division has reserved judgment in an appeal by former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Godwin Emefiele, challenging a trial judge’s refusal to withdraw from his criminal trial over a disputed $400,000 allegation.
A three-member panel led by Justice Biobele Georgewill reserved judgment on Tuesday after hearing arguments from counsel for Emefiele and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
Emefiele is asking the appellate court to set aside the February 26, 2025, decision of Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, which dismissed his application seeking the judge’s recusal over alleged bias.
Through his counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN) and Olawale Fapohunda (SAN), the former CBN governor argued that the trial judge’s decision to permit a leading question during the testimony of a prosecution witness created the impression that he had prejudged the allegation that Emefiele received $400,000.
However, the EFCC, represented by C.C. Okezie, urged the appellate court to dismiss the appeal, describing it as an abuse of court process.
Okezie asked the panel to examine the testimony of the prosecution’s seventh witness, identified as PW7, in the record of proceedings and uphold the trial judge’s decision.
The appellate court said the date for delivering judgment would be communicated to the parties.
Before hearing the appeal, the panel deemed properly filed and served Emefiele’s motion on notice, dated February 6, 2026, seeking to introduce additional records.
It also regularised the EFCC’s respondent’s brief through a motion dated January 21, 2026.
The dispute arose on February 24, 2025, when the prosecution was examining PW7 during Emefiele’s trial.
According to Emefiele’s brief of argument, the witness had testified that one John Ayoh handed him $400,000.
During the examination-in-chief, prosecution counsel asked the witness, “Is it the same money that you now said you gave the defendant in his office?”
Emefiele’s counsel objected to the question, arguing that it was leading.
In his ruling, Justice Oshodi acknowledged that the question was leading but permitted it under Section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
The provision allows leading questions on introductory or undisputed matters and issues the court considers sufficiently proved.
The judge said, “Having considered the submissions, it is clear that the question put to PW7 is a leading question. However, under section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, leading questions may be allowed as to matters which the PW7 has sufficiently given. For this reason, I will allow the question.”
Following the ruling, Emefiele’s counsel applied for the judge to recuse himself, arguing that the decision suggested he had already formed an opinion on whether the former CBN governor received the disputed money.
Justice Oshodi dismissed the application on February 26, 2025, holding that the allegation of bias had not been substantiated.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Emefiele filed an appeal dated March 6, 2025, challenging the judge’s refusal to withdraw from the case.
In his brief of argument, Ojo contended that the trial judge’s reliance on the provision permitting leading questions on matters sufficiently proved amounted to prejudging an issue that should only be determined after the prosecution had presented its evidence and the defence had an opportunity to challenge it.
He argued that the allegation remained disputed and that PW7 had not been cross-examined when the ruling was delivered.
According to Emefiele, the judge’s pronouncement could reasonably create the impression that the prosecution had already established that he received the $400,000, thereby raising concerns about the impartiality of the proceedings.
Ojo maintained that the right to a fair hearing under Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, includes the right to be tried by an impartial court.
Citing In Re Abdullahi (2018), A.I.C. Ltd v. Edo State Government (2016) and CIL Risk & Asset Management Ltd v. Ekiti State Government (2020), he urged the appellate court to find that the judge’s remarks demonstrated bias or, at the least, created a likelihood of bias.
He also challenged the trial court’s reliance on previous judicial decisions concerning allegations of bias, arguing that they did not address the specific circumstances of a judge allegedly prejudging a substantive issue while ruling on an interlocutory application.
The EFCC, however, maintained that the trial judge acted correctly and urged the appellate court to uphold his decision.
The appeal arose from the criminal proceedings instituted against Emefiele under an amended information dated April 3, 2024.
The charges include allegations of accepting gratification, corrupt demand and receiving property allegedly obtained fraudulently under Sections 8, 10 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.