Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, on Friday, November 13, 2026, admitted a Certified True Copy (CTC) of a Supreme Court judgment as an exhibit in the ongoing trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, and his co-defendant, Henry Omoile, over an alleged $4.5 billion fraud.
Emefiele is being prosecuted by the Lagos Zonal Directorate 1 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on a 19-count charge bordering on receiving gratification and making corrupt demands while serving as CBN Governor.
At the resumed proceedings on Friday, a prosecution witness, Gurumnaan, continued his evidence-in-chief under examination by prosecution counsel and Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN
Oyedepo, who appeared alongside B. B. Bilkisu, C. C. Okezie, Z. B. Atiku and F. Orilade, tendered the CTC before the court.
However, defence counsel, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, vehemently opposed its admissibility, urging the court to reject it on several grounds.
Ojo argued that it could not be regarded as a valid Supreme Court judgment because it was signed by only four justices, whereas decisions of the apex court are ordinarily delivered by a panel of five or seven justices.
He further contended that, based on the testimony of the seventh prosecution witness (PW7), the decision emanated from non-conviction proceedings and was therefore irrelevant to the prosecution’s case.
Similarly, the second defence counsel, Adeyinka Kotoye, SAN, aligned himself with Ojo’s submissions, arguing that the prosecution’s attempt to introduce the document after proceedings had commenced was another reason it should be rejected.
In response, Oyedepo maintained that the CTC was a duly certified copy of a Supreme Court decision and satisfied the requirements of Sections 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act. He argued that the presence of a lead judgment did not affect its admissibility and urged the court to admit it in evidence.
In a brief ruling, Justice Oshodi held that a Supreme Court judgment was a public document and that the necessary certification requirements had been met. He consequently admitted it as Exhibit 10.
The case was adjourned until December 17, 18, 2026, and January 11, 14 and 19, 2027 for continuation of trial.
