An Ikeja Special Offences Court will today, Oct. 9 rule on the admissibility of digital evidence presented by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Justice Rahman Oshodi reserved the date after hearing arguments from both sides on the authenticity and certification of documents extracted from a former executive assistant to Emefiele.
The former governor Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele, faces a 19-count charge bordering on receiving gratification and corrupt demands.
His co-defendant, Mr Henry Omoile, faces a three-count charge for unlawful acceptance of gifts by agents.
The charges involve alleged transactions amounting to $4.5 billion and ₦2.8 billion.
Earlier, EFCC counsel, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), continued with the testimony of operative Mr Alvan Gurumnaan, who detailed the digital trail uncovered during investigation.
The evidence presented included WhatsApp conversations between key individuals in the case.
The witness explained that the acronym “PCS” found in the chats meant “piece”, a code signifying a unit of 1,000 USD.
Further analysis of the phone of Mr John Adetola, Emefiele’s former executive assistant, allegedly revealed chats with Mr Eric Eboh instructing him to deliver $400,000 to the ex-governor.
Gurumnaan testified that Adetola confirmed receiving and delivering the money, adding that efforts to locate and interview Eboh were ongoing.
Some documents dated February 2024 were admitted without objection, but others extracted from Adetola’s phone met strong resistance from the defence.
Defence counsel, Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN) and Mr Kazeem Gbadamosi (SAN), opposed their admissibility, citing lack of proper certification under the Evidence Act.
They argued that the documents, being electronically generated, should be certified true copies as required by Section 84 of the Evidence Act.
The prosecution countered that certification was unnecessary since the witness confirmed the originality of the equipment used to extract the data.
Oyedepo maintained that the document belonged to the EFCC, and any officer familiar with the device could give evidence on it.
He argued that it was primary evidence of a private conversation, unaltered and relevant to counts 18 to 20 in the charge sheet.
The court adjourned the matter until Oct. 9 for ruling.
