Justice Hamza Muazu of an Abuja High Court on Wednesday adjourned until November 27 for a ruling on the eligibility of a witness from the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation to testify in the trial of the former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Godwin Emefiele.

Emefiele is being prosecuted by the OAGF in the case marked CR/577/2023 on an amended 20-count charge bordering on criminal breach of trust, conferring corrupt advantage, forgery, conspiracy to obtain by false pretence, and obtaining money by false pretence while he was CBN governor.

He was alleged to have, among other allegations, used his position as CBN governor between 2018 and 2022 to award six different contracts for the supply of various vehicles to April 1616—a company in which a CBN staff member, Sa’adatu Ramalan Yaro, is a director and shareholder—to the tune of ₦1.2 billion. Emefiele, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge preferred against him.

At the resumed hearing, Emefiele, through his counsel, Mathew Burkaa SAN, objected to the prosecution calling its 11th witness (PW11), Alvan Grumman, to testify in the matter.

Burkaa based his argument on the fact that the witness’s name was included in the additional proof of evidence dated October 15, 2024, which the court had previously struck out in its ruling of March 20. He told the court that the prosecution had sought leave to appeal the decision to strike out the additional proof of a witness.

Furthermore, Burkaa argued through a motion marked M/4626/25 that the prosecution had initiated vertical proceedings (appeal) and, as such, the witness could not testify in the case.

He added that it was “an abuse of court proceedings for the prosecution to take both a vertical and a horizontal approach by filing an appeal against the court’s March 20 ruling.”

Responding to the objection, the prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo SAN, told the court that the defendant’s motion, which the court ruled on on March 20, did not mention Grumman but was specifically against Tommy Odama and Ifeanyi Omeke.

He maintained that the witness had material facts concerning the case, being the investigator who handled the matter, and subsequently urged the court to refuse the defence’s objection to Grumman giving evidence in the case.

After listening to the arguments from both parties regarding the eligibility of the witness, Justice Muazu adjourned the matter until November 27 to rule on the objection and for the continuation of the hearing.

Earlier, Oyedepo had informed the court that the prosecution had filed two separate applications for the subpoena of two witnesses to testify before the court.

According to him, the witnesses, Tommy Odama and Ifeanyi Omeke, both had material facts in custody to aid the court in the just determination of the case, and their testimonies would assist the prosecution in presenting its case. He noted that the court was yet to respond to the application.

In response, Emefiele’s counsel urged the court to refuse the subpoena applications, arguing that all parties were bound by the court’s decision in its ruling of March 20.

He further argued that having proceeded on appeal, the prosecution could no longer come back to the court to seek the same prayers before the appellate court. He also informed the court that the said subpoenas were filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and not by the OAGF, which filed the charges against his client before the court.

The court subsequently reserved ruling on the applications for subpoena as well.