By Hassanat Adebowale
An Ikeja Special Offences Court on Wednesday dismissed a recusal application filed by the embattled former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele. The application sought to have Justice Rahman Oshodi step down from the case due to alleged bias.
Justice Oshodi rejected the oral application after reviewing arguments from both parties. The court cited various Supreme Court decisions in its ruling.
Justice Oshodi stated that the allegations of bias raised by Emefiele’s defense team were unsubstantiated. “The oral application lacks merit,” he said, adding that there was no evidence to justify his withdrawal from the case.
“I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel. This oral application came as a result of a ruling delivered on February 24, asking the court to recuse itself from this case on the grounds of bias. The allegation of bias has not been substantiated. Accordingly, the first and second defendants’ recusal application is hereby refused,” Oshodi ruled.
Emefiele’s Counsel, Mr. Olalekan Ojo (SAN), had urged the court on Monday to step down from the matter, arguing that the judge’s previous rulings suggested a likelihood of bias. However, Counsel for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), objected to the application, describing it as unmeritorious and a delay tactic.
Emefiele is facing a 19-count charge related to receiving gratification and corrupt demands. His co-defendant, Henry Omoile, is facing a three-count charge related to the unlawful acceptance of gifts by agents.
When the trial resumed on Wednesday, Oyedepo appeared for the EFCC, Ojo represented Emefiele, and Mr. Kazeem Gbadamosi (SAN) appeared for the second defendant.
In a second ruling on Wednesday, the court granted Emefiele permission to appeal a Jan. 8 ruling that challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear his case. Justice Oshodi adjourned the case until May 26 for the continuation of the trial.
The right to a fair trial is guaranteed by Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Defendants can question a judge’s impartiality if they have valid concerns about bias, but these claims need to be backed by clear and convincing evidence. In this situation, the court decided that simply perceiving bias, without solid proof, is not enough to force a judge to step down.
This decision highlights the judiciary’s effort to prevent frivolous attempts to disrupt trials, while still ensuring that defendants have the option to seek redress through the appeals process.
Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com