$4.5bn, N2.8Bn Abuse Of Office Charge: Emefiele Fights Back, Says EFCC Cannot Try Him In Lagos 

…Justice Oshodi to decide in January 7, 2024

Beleaguered former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, accused of abuse of office to the tune of $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion, has fought back, challenging the constitutional power of the EFCC to try him in Lagos courts.

Armed with the ruling of the Court of Appeal that directed Justice Rahman Oshodi to determine the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding further in the case, Emefiele, led by his leading lawyer, Mr Olalekan Ojo, SAN, on Thursday, told the trial Judge  to hands off from the case on the grounds that the offence allegedly committed were not within the territorial reach of the Ikeja Special Offences Court.

The  reports that Emefiele is facing a 26- count charge, filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), accusing him of abusing his office to the tune of $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion.

Emefiele faces a 26 count charge, filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), accusing him of abusing his office to the tune of $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion.

His co-defendant, Henry Omoile, is also standing trial on charges related to the unlawful acceptance of gifts.

During  today  proceedings, Emefiele’s counsel, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to try the case in Lagos.

Ojo contended that the alleged offences, including abuse of office, were not within the territorial reach of the Ikeja Special Offences Court.

He also argued that the charges violated Section 36(12) of the Constitution, claiming that the actions Emefiele is accused of were not offences known to law.

He submitted that since the Legislative power of the Lagos State House of Assembly does not extend to matters on the Exclusive Legislature List, Section 73 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2011 under or pursuant to which Counts 1 — 4 have been laid does not and cannot have extra-territorial application to any alleged abuse of office by the 1st defendant.

He argued that territorial jurisdiction of a Court implies a geographical area within which the authority of the Court may be exercised and outside of which the Court has no power to act.

 He stated that the ingredients of the offence of conferring corrupt advantage under Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act

Ojo urged the court to strike out  Counts 1 — 4 of the 18 amended information dated 3rd April, 2024 and filed on 4th April 2024 against the 1st Defendant (Emefiele) on the grounds that all times material to the commission of the said offences.

In response, EFCC’s counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, maintained that the court has the authority to hear the case, as the alleged offences occurred within its jurisdiction.

 Oyedepo submitted that the crimes in question are economic and financial, falling under the jurisdiction of the EFCC, and that the evidence supports the venue being Lagos.

Oyedepo maintained that the subject matter in the allegations levelled against the Defendants are within the exclusive preserve of this Court to hear and determine.

He argued that the alleged offences having being committed within the territorial jurisdiction of this  Court are properly laid before the Court by the Prosecution against the Defendants,

He submitted that the proper venue wherein the Defendants can be tried for the alleged offences is Lagos state, wherein all the ingredients of the alleged offences took place.

He argued that the preliminary objection of Emefiele and the contention therein is to the effect that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine the case is neither predicated nor borne out of the facts in the proof of evidence and the charge as couched by the Prosecution.

He added that not only are the essential ingredients of the alleged offences committed, present within the territorial jurisdiction of

Court, stressing that prosecution proposed witnesses are substantially within the territorial jurisdiction of the  Court.

After taking arguments from both parties, Justice Oshodi fixed January 7, 2025 for ruling.