Witness Admits Emefiele Didn't Confer Corrupt Advantage on Self

Says investigation limited to Emefiele's relatives, associates Didn’t interview wife, brother-in-law on ownership of Archtekon firm

Mr Michael Agboro, a prosecution witness in the trial of former Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr

Godwin Emefiele, yesterday, admitted before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) that Emefiele did not confer any unfair or corrupt advantage on himself in the award of contracts to some companies during his tenure at the apex bank.

Emefiele is standing trial on a 20-count amended charge preferred against him by the office of the

Attorney General of the Federation (AGF). He was alleged to have engaged in criminal breach of trust, forgery, conspiracy to obtain by false pretence, and obtaining money by false pretence, when he served as the apex bank's boss.

Among the allegations was that the former CBN governor forged a document, titled, “Re: Presidential Directive on Foreign Election Observer Missions,” dated January 26, 2023, with Ref No. SGF.43/L.01/201, and purported same to have emanated from the office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF).

Besides, Emefiele was accused of using his office as CBN governor to confer unfair and corrupt advantage on two companies, April 1616 Nigeria Limited and Architekon Nigeria Limited.

At Monday's proceedings, the federal government, in trying to establish its charge, called its seventh prosecution witness, Agboro, an investigator with the Independent, Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC).

Agboro, led in evidence by Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, tendered several documents, including company registration documents and awards as well as payments for contract relating to the two forms.

In his evidence, the investigator claimed that Emefiele conferred unfair and corrupt advantage in the award of contracts to April 1616 and Archtekon because documents with his team, comprising persons drawn from the ICPC, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), and Department of State Service (DSS), showed that while a Director of April 1616, Mrs Saadatu Yaro, was a public officer, with the CBN, Emefiele's wife, Margaret Omoyile, and his brother-in-law, Mac Congo, were directors in Architekon.

However, during cross examination by Emefiele's lawyer, Mr Mathew Burkaa, SAN, the witness, when asked whether the defendant conferred unfair and corrupt advantage on himself, answered, "He conferred on Saadatu Ramalan Yaro, who is a public officer working under him. He also conferred on his wife and brother-in-law.”

The cross examination, partly, went thus, between Burkaa (Emefiele’s lawyer) and Agboro (prosecution witness):

Question: So he did not confer on himself.

Answer: No. We limited our investigation to him, his wife, relatives and associates.

Besides, the witness admitted that nowhere in their findings did they discover that Emefiele was a director or shareholder or an account signatory in either April1616 Limited or Architekon Nigeria Limited.

He also admitted that there was no evidence of any payment made to Emefiele by these companies in the course of performing his duties at the CBN.

When asked if in the course of their investigation they interviewed people in CBN to determine whether the two firms executed the jobs they were contracted to do, the witness said "yes".

However, when asked if the team in their final report stated this fact, the witness said he could not recall if they did.

Agboro had earlier admitted that his team did a report on their investigation, which was forwarded to the DG, DSS, adding that he did not come to the court with it.

When asked if he was conversant with the procedure of award of contracts in the CBN, the witness, who replied in affirmation, however, told the court, "I cannot remember" whether the defendant was part of the procurement and tender committees that vetted, reviewed and recommended April 1616 and Architekon for the various projects they handled.

Question: Are you aware that all the contracts that formed the basis of this charge passed through the vetting committee? Answer: I don't know. Question: In the course of your investigation, did you see any document, which showed that the defendant, either by phone call, email or official communication of CBN, made representation that April 1616 and Architekon should be awarded these contracts?

Answer: No. Continues online