Court Rejects Emefiele’s Jurisdiction Challenge In $4.5B, ₦2.8B Abuse Of Office Case, Strikes Out Four Charges
The Ikeja Special Offences Court on Wednesday dismissed former Central Bank Governor Godwin Emefiele’s application challenging its jurisdiction in his ongoing case involving alleged abuse of office resulting in losses of billion and ₦2.8 billion.
Emefiele faces 26 counts filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), while his co-defendant, Henry Omoile, is accused of related offences, including the unlawful acceptance of gifts.
Justice Rahman Oshodi ruled that the court has jurisdiction to hear counts eight to 26, citing a sufficient territorial nexus based on the evidence presented by the EFCC.
“The prosecution has established sufficient territorial connections in this case,” Justice Oshodi said.
However, the judge struck out counts one to four, related to foreign exchange allocation, ruling that the acts in question were not defined as offences under any written law.
“Allocation of foreign exchange without reason is not classified as an offence in any written law,” the judge clarified.
The trial has been adjourned to February 24, 2025, for continuation.
On December 12, 2024, Emefiele’s counsel, Mr. Olalekan Ojo (SAN), argued that the alleged offences occurred outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction, contending that they did not meet the requirements of Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which mandates that actions must be defined as offences under written law.
Ojo further argued that the Lagos State House of Assembly lacked the legislative authority to address matters on the Exclusive Legislative List and that Section 73 of the Lagos State Criminal Law, 2011, could not apply extra-territorially to Emefiele’s alleged misconduct.
In response, EFCC counsel Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) maintained that the offences were economic and financial in nature, placing them under the EFCC’s purview. He argued that witness testimonies and evidence established Lagos as the proper venue for the trial.
The court’s decision to retain jurisdiction over most charges while dismissing four provides a partial victory for both parties, setting the stage for the trial to proceed.
