The Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal on Tuesday reserved judgment on an appeal filed by former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, who is seeking the removal of the trial judge handling his criminal case over an alleged prejudgment of a disputed $400,000 payment.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
A three-member panel led by Justice Biobele Georgewill reserved judgment, with the date to be communicated to the parties, after hearing arguments from Emefiele’s lawyers and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Emefiele is challenging Justice Rahman Oshodi’s refusal to recuse himself from the trial at the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja on the ground that the judge’s handling of a question put by the prosecution created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The former CBN Governor, through his lawyer, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, urged the appellate court to set aside the trial judge’s February 26, 2025 ruling dismissing his recusal application.
Emefiele was arraigned before Justice Oshodi alongside Henry Omoile by the EFCC on allegations of accepting gratification, accepting gifts through agents, corruption and fraudulent receipt of property.
The anti-graft agency also accused the defendants of conferring a corrupt advantage on Emefiele’s associates, in contravention of the Corrupt Practices Act, 2000.
They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The appeal arose from a ruling delivered on February 24, 2025, during the examination of the prosecution’s seventh witness, PW7, concerning an alleged $400,000 payment said to have been received by Emefiele.
According to Emefiele’s brief of argument, PW7 testified that one John Ayoh handed him $400,000 before the prosecution asked: “Is it the same money that you now said you gave the Defendant in his office?”
Emefiele’s counsel objected on the ground that the question was leading and suggested that the disputed payment had already been established.
Justice Oshodi acknowledged that the question was leading but allowed it under Section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
The provision permits leading questions on introductory or undisputed matters, as well as issues the court considers sufficiently proved.
The judge ruled that the question could be allowed because the witness had testified sufficiently on the matter.
Following the ruling, Emefiele’s lawyers applied for the judge to withdraw from the case.
They argued that his decision suggested that he had formed a view on the allegation before the prosecution completed its evidence and before the defence had an opportunity to challenge the witness.
Justice Oshodi dismissed the application on February 26, 2025, holding that the allegation of bias was unsubstantiated.
Emefiele subsequently filed an appeal dated March 6, 2025, asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the decision.
Appearing before the appellate court, Ojo argued that the trial judge’s reliance on the provision permitting leading questions on matters sufficiently proved amounted to prejudgment of a material issue in the criminal trial.
He said the alleged receipt of the $400,000 remained disputed and that PW7 had not been cross-examined when the controversial ruling was delivered.
According to the appellant, the judge’s remarks could reasonably create the impression that the prosecution had already established that Emefiele received the money, thereby raising concerns about the impartiality required in criminal proceedings.
Ojo argued 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 judicial decisions, including 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 trial judge’s conduct showed bias or created a likelihood of bias.
He also criticised the trial court’s reliance on earlier judicial decisions concerning allegations of bias, arguing that they did not adequately address a situation in which a judge allegedly expressed a view on a disputed substantive issue while deciding an interlocutory matter.
The EFCC, through its counsel, Cyril Okezie, urged the appellate court to dismiss the appeal, describing it as an abuse of court process.
Okezie asked the panel to review PW7’s testimony in the record of proceedings, arguing that it would show that Justice Oshodi acted properly in allowing the question.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
