The ongoing trial of former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr. Godwin Emefiele, took a dramatic and unexpected turn on Thursday after a prosecution witness told the court that he, not Emefiele was responsible for the controversial $2.5 million withdrawn from the apex bank.
According to the witness, the foreign currency withdrawal, which forms a key part of the allegations against the former CBN governor, was carried out illegally under his own authority. In a stunning admission, the witness claimed full responsibility for the transaction, distancing Emefiele from direct involvement in the movement of the funds.
The $2.5 million withdrawal has been central to the prosecution’s case, with allegations that the funds were fraudulently taken from the CBN under Emefiele’s leadership. However, the witness’s testimony appears to challenge that narrative, raising new questions about culpability, chain of command, and internal controls within the bank at the time.
Legal observers note that such an admission could significantly affect the direction of the trial. While responsibility for executing a transaction does not automatically absolve a superior officer, it complicates the prosecution’s burden of proving intent, authorization, or direct benefit on the part of the former CBN governor.
The testimony highlights a critical issue that the court will have to consider: whether Emefiele personally ordered, approved, or knowingly benefited from the withdrawal, or whether the transaction was carried out independently by subordinates acting outside their mandate.
As the trial continues, both the prosecution and the defence are expected to scrutinize the witness’s claims, including:
How the withdrawal was approved internally
Whether due process was followed or bypassed
Who ultimately had access to and control over the funds
Public Interest and Institutional Accountability
The case remains one of the most closely watched corruption trials in Nigeria, not only because of Emefiele’s prominence, but also due to its implications for transparency and accountability in public financial institutions.
While the witness’s admission has introduced doubt into the prosecution’s narrative, legal experts caution that the trial is far from over. The court’s final judgment will depend on the totality of evidence presented, not on a single testimony.
For now, the revelation has injected fresh tension into the courtroom—and reinforced the complexity of proving financial crimes at the highest.
Add comment
Comments