By EDITH NWAPI

A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) high court on Thursday, adjourned until June 24 for continuation of hearing the trial of suspended Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele at the instance of the prosecution.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charged Emefiele with 20 counts of criminal breach of trust, forgery, conspiracy to obtain by false pretence and obtaining money by false pretence, when he served as the apex bank’s boss.

The EFCC alleged that the suspended CBN governor forged a document titled: Re: Presidential Directive on Foreign Election Observer Missions dated January 26, 2023 with Ref No. SGF.43/L.01/201 and purported same to have emanated from the office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (AGF).

Besides he is also accused of using his office as CBN governor to confer unfair and corrupt advantage on two companies; April 1616 Nigeria Ltd and Architekon Nigeria Ltd.

Emefiele in the amended charge was alleged to have, on Feb. 8, 2023 knowingly obtained , by false pretence, 6.2million dollars.

The anti-graft agency alleged that he falsely representing that the Secretary to the Government of the Federation vide a letter dated Jan. 26, 2023 with Ref No. SGF 43/L.01/201 requested the CBN to provide a contingent logistic advance in the sum of $6,230,000 “in line with Mr. President’s directive.”

When the case was called earlier, the prosecution was not in court nor the defendant (Emefiele) but he was represented by one of his counsel.

Emefiele’s counsel, I D Ahmed told the court that the prosecution served him a letter praying for an adjournment.

Justice Hamza Muazu, asked about the whereabouts of the defendant.

Ahmed apologized on behalf of the defendant.

The judge said: “because you have a letter of adjournment from the prosecution does not mean the defendant should not be in court”.

Ahmed apologised on the defendant’s behalf.

Justice Muazu then adjourned until June 24 and June 25 for continuation of trial.

At the last proceeding on March 11, an investigator with the Independent, Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) testified as the prosecution’s seventh witness (PW7).

Agboro led in evidence, by Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, prosecution counsel tendered several documents including company registration documents and award as well as payments for contract relating to the two forms.

In his evidence the investigator claimed that Emefiele conferred unfair and corrupt advantage in the award of contracts to April 1616 and Archtekon.

He added that documents his team, comprising of persons drawn from the ICPC, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Department of State Service (DSS), showed that while a Director of April 1616, Mrs Saadatu Yaro, is a Public Officer, with the CBN, Emefiele’s wife, Margaret Omoyile and his brother-in-law, Mac Congo are directors in Architekon.

However, during cross examination by Emefiele’s lawyer, Mathew Burkaa, SAN, the witness when asked whether the defendant conferred unfair and corrupt advantage on himself, answered that, “he conferred on Saadatu Ramalan Yaro, who is a Public Officer working under him. He also conferred on his wife and brother-in-law.

He said, “We limited our investigation to him, his wife, relatives and associates when asked why others mentioned in the transaction were not charged.

Besides, the witness admitted that nowhere in their findings did they discovered that Emefiele was a director or shareholder or an account signatory in either April1616 limited or Architekon Nigeria limited.

He also admitted that there was no evidence of any payment made to Emefiele by these companies in the course of performing his duties at the CBN.

Also when asked if in the course of their investigation they interviewed people in the CBN to determine whether the two firms executed the jobs they were contracted to do, the witness said “yes”.

However, when asked if the team in their final report stated this fact, the witness said he could not recall if they did.

Agboro had earlier admitted that his team did a report on their investigation which was forwarded to the DG, DSS, adding that he did not come to the court with it.

When asked if he was conversant with the procedure of award of contracts in the CBN, the witness who replied in affirmation, however, told the court that “I cannot remember” whether the defendant was part of the procurement and tender committees that vetted, reviewed and recommended April 1616 and Architekon for the various projects they handled.

He said, “I don’t know when asked if he is aware that all the contracts that formed the basis of this charge passed through the vetting committee.”

“In the course of your investigation did you see any document which showed that the defendant either by phone call, email or official communication of CBN made representation that April 1616 and Architekon should be awarded these contracts?” His response was ‘no’.

When asked when it relates to the award of contract to these two companies, if he knew all these processes laid down by the CBN were followed, he said ‘yes’.

Meanwhile, the witness admitted that April 1616 went through a bidding process with other companies and won the various contracts awarded to it.

Agboro, further confirmed that he did not visit the contract sites to verify if the jobs awarded to the firms were done.

When asked, “Since you did not visit, you will not know if the contract was carried out or not? He answered ‘yes.’

Asked if he thought it was wrong for payments to be made to the contractors after jobs had been completed, the witness confirmed that it was not inappropriate to make such payments.

Upon further cross examination regarding the number of people that treats a document for a final award of contracts, the witness confirmed that there are up to 10 persons that minuted on a contract document; whereas only the defendant, out of 10 that is standing trial.

When asked that he would agree that of the 10 persons, it is only the defendant that is standing trial, he said ‘yes.’

On the issue of Emefiele’s wife being a Director of Architekon, the witness who claimed that besides documents obtained from the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Emefiele himself during an interview confirmed that Margaret Omoyile was his wife. (NAN)

Update news