The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday declined an application by defence counsel to adjourn proceedings in the ongoing trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, over the alleged unlawful redesign of the naira.
Emefiele is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on a four-count charge bordering on the alleged unlawful printing of new naira notes.
At the resumed hearing before Justice Maryanne Anineh on February 10, 2026, prosecution counsel, Abbas Mohammed, informed the court that the matter was slated for continuation of the cross-examination of the seventh prosecution witness (PW7), who was present in court.
However, defence counsel, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, objected to proceeding, arguing that the prosecution had only made available—about 20 minutes before the sitting—a six-page investigation report containing the statement of the Managing Director of the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Plc, which the defence had earlier requested.
Ojo contended that the document ought to have been served at least 24 to 48 hours before the hearing to enable adequate preparation.
“My Lord, the investigation report was made available to us barely 20 minutes before today’s proceedings. Even the defendant has not had the opportunity to see it. We have not had the chance to look at the report critically,” he submitted, urging the court to grant an adjournment.
In response, Mohammed denied any deliberate attempt to ambush the defence, explaining that the report was produced following a request made during the previous sitting when the defence asked whether an investigation report existed and demanded its production.
He maintained that the document was meant to be tendered through the witness and urged the court to direct the defence to proceed with the cross-examination, noting that additional dates were available to address issues relating to the report.
Ruling on the objection, Justice Anineh refused the application for adjournment and ordered that the cross-examination of PW7 continue.
During cross-examination, Ojo questioned the witness on an email exchange between the Managing Director of the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company and De La Rue. The witness told the court that the email was provided to the EFCC by the Managing Director, whom he identified as Ahmed Halilu.
Asked how many statements the Managing Director made, the witness said he could not recall but confirmed that statements were taken. He also confirmed that he directly interacted with the Managing Director during the investigation.
The witness, however, said he could not remember when the investigation was concluded.
On whether the EFCC inquired from CBN officials about the quantity of redesigned naira notes released to the public, the witness answered in the affirmative but stated that he did not have the specific figures available in court and was not certain whether they were documented.
He further told the court that EFCC teams, alongside other law enforcement agencies, visited different parts of the country to ensure that the redesigned currency was made available to customers over the counter in commercial banks.
While acknowledging awareness of allegations that some banks hoarded the new notes, the witness said he could not provide specifics.
When defence counsel sought to question the witness on whether any arrests were made over alleged infractions by banks, prosecution counsel objected, arguing that the witness was testifying strictly on the investigation relating to the approval of the naira redesign and not on matters outside the charges.
Ojo countered that cross-examination was not confined to evidence-in-chief and pressed the witness further. The witness responded that, although he headed the team, he supervised multiple assignments and was not physically present at all operations conducted nationwide. He said he was unaware of any sanctions imposed on erring banks or whether the CBN directed the EFCC to take action against them.
The defence renewed its request for adjournment, stating that the prosecution had indicated it did not possess the original statement of the Managing Director of the printing company.
The prosecution, however, informed the court that the Managing Director had already testified as the second prosecution witness (PW2) and that all relevant documents were before the court.
Justice Anineh subsequently adjourned the matter to March 19; April 1 and 2; May 11 and 12; and June 9 and 10, 2026, for continuation of trial.
