Counsel to Henry Omoile, Mr E.N. Offial, on Thursday told the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, that his client was never harassed by operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) during interrogation over the alleged $4.5 billion fraud involving a former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr Godwin Emefiele.
Omoile is standing trial alongside Emefiele, who is facing a 19-count charge bordering on receiving gratification and making corrupt demands during his tenure as CBN Governor. The EFCC has also preferred a three-count charge against Omoile, bordering on the unlawful acceptance of gifts as an agent. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
At the resumed hearing on Thursday, January 15, 2026, Offial made the disclosure while being cross-examined by the prosecution counsel, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, in the ongoing trial-within-trial to determine the voluntariness of Omoile’s statement to the EFCC.
Under cross-examination, the defence counsel admitted that Omoile was cautioned in his presence and that he signed the cautionary statement. He also confirmed that he participated in the interrogation process and was aware that whatever his client wrote in his statement could be used against him in court.
When asked whether he had lodged any complaint or filed a petition against the EFCC over the alleged conduct of the investigative team, Offial answered in the negative. He further admitted that the judge who heard the fundamental rights enforcement suit did not find the EFCC guilty of any misconduct and that his client was not harassed in his presence.
Earlier in the proceedings, the witness had alleged that EFCC investigators attempted to pressure his client into implicating the first defendant, Emefiele. Offial had claimed that the investigators made promises to Omoile in exchange for providing incriminating evidence against the former CBN governor.
However, during cross-examination, these claims were contradicted. Offial acknowledged that the allegations were unfounded and maintained that the interrogation was conducted in a question-and-answer format, with his client required to respond to questions before documenting them in writing.
Following the proceedings, Justice Rahman Oshodi adjourned the matter until January 16, 2026, for the continuation of the hearing.
