Alleged Judicial Bias: Appeal Court Reserves Judgment on Emefiele’s Bid to Disqualify Trial Judge
Wale Igbintade
The Court of Appeal in Lagos has reserved judgment in an appeal by former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, challenging a trial judge’s refusal to recuse himself over allegations that his ruling on an alleged $400,000 payment created an impression of judicial bias.
A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Biobele Georgewill, on Tuesday reserved judgment in the appeal after hearing arguments from counsel to the parties.
Other members of the panel are Justices Boloukuromo Ugo and Muslim Hassan.
Emefiele is asking the appellate court to set aside the February 26, 2025, ruling of Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, which dismissed his application seeking the judge’s withdrawal from his ongoing criminal trial.
Through his counsel, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, and Olawale Fapohunda, SAN, the former CBN governor argued that Justice Oshodi prejudged a disputed allegation by permitting the prosecution to ask a leading question suggesting that the alleged $400,000 had been sufficiently established as having been received by him.
However, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), through its counsel, C.C. Okezie, urged the appellate court to dismiss the appeal, describing it as an abuse of court process.
Okezie asked the panel to examine the testimony of the prosecution’s seventh witness, PW7, as contained in the record of proceedings, and uphold the trial judge’s decision.
The court said the date for delivering its judgment would be communicated to the parties.
Before hearing the substantive appeal, the panel deemed properly filed and served Emefiele’s motion on notice, dated February 6, 2026, seeking to introduce additional records.
It also regularised the EFCC’s respondent’s brief through a motion dated January 21, 2026.
The dispute originated on February 24, 2025, during the continuation of Emefiele’s trial, when the prosecution was examining PW7.
According to Emefiele’s brief of argument, the witness had testified that one John Ayoh handed him $400,000.
During the examination-in-chief, prosecution counsel asked the witness: “Is it the same money that you now said you gave the Defendant in his office?”
Emefiele’s counsel objected, arguing that the question was leading.
In his ruling, Justice Oshodi acknowledged that the question was leading but allowed it under Section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which permits leading questions on introductory or undisputed matters and issues the court considers sufficiently proved.
The judge held: “Having considered the submissions, it is clear that the question put to PW7, is a leading question. However under section 221(3) of the Evidence Act, leading questions maybe allowed as to matters which the PW7, has sufficiently given. For this reason I will allow the question.”
Following the ruling, Emefiele’s counsel applied for the judge to recuse himself, contending that the decision suggested that he had already formed a view on the disputed allegation that the former CBN governor received the money.
Justice Oshodi dismissed the recusal application on February 26, 2025, holding that the allegation of bias had not been substantiated.
Dissatisfied, Emefiele filed an appeal dated March 6, 2025, challenging the refusal to withdraw from the case.
In his brief of argument, Ojo contended that the trial judge’s reliance on the provision permitting leading questions on matters sufficiently proved amounted to prejudging an issue that should be determined only after the prosecution had presented its evidence and the defence had been given an opportunity to challenge it.
He argued that the allegation remained disputed and that PW7 had not been cross-examined when the controversial ruling was delivered.
According to the appellant, the judge’s pronouncement could reasonably create the impression that the prosecution had already established that Emefiele received the $400,000, notwithstanding the defence’s right to challenge the witness’s testimony.
Ojo maintained that the right to a fair hearing under Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, includes the right to be tried by an impartial court.
Relying on judicial authorities, including In Re Abdullahi (2018), A.I.C. Ltd v. Edo State Government (2016) and CIL Risk & Asset Management Ltd v. Ekiti State Government (2020), he urged the appellate court to hold that the judge’s remarks demonstrated bias or, at the very least, created a likelihood of bias.
He also faulted the trial court’s reliance on previous decisions concerning allegations of bias, arguing that they did not address the specific circumstances of a judge allegedly prejudging a substantive issue while ruling on an interlocutory application.
The EFCC, however, urged the appellate court to reject Emefiele’s arguments and uphold Justice Oshodi’s decision, maintaining that an examination of PW7’s testimony would demonstrate that the trial judge acted correctly.
The appeal stems from the criminal proceedings instituted against Emefiele under an amended information dated April 3, 2024.
The charges include allegations of accepting gratification, corrupt demand and receiving property allegedly obtained fraudulently under Sections 8, 10 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
Count 18 specifically alleged that Emefiele received $400,000.
He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.