Court Declines Adjournment by Defence Counsel Over Emefiele’s Alleged Unlawful Naira Redesign

Emefiele’s alleged unlawful naira redesign, Court declines adjournment by defence counsel over statement  of MD,  Nigerian Printing and Minting.

The trial of the former Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, Godwin Emefiele before Justice Maryanne Anineh of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, FCT, High Court, Maitama, Abuja, continued on Tuesday, February 10, 2026 with the refusal of the court to grant a motion of adjournment of proceedings owing to the non-availability of the statement of the managing director of the Nigerian Security  Printing Plc, demanded by the defence counsel

The EFCC is prosecuting Emefiele on a four-count charge of unlawful printing of new naira notes.

At Tuesday’s  proceedings, prosecution counsel, Abbas Mohammed, informed the court that the matter is for the continuation of cross-examination of PW7, and he is in court.

However, defence counsel, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, raised an objection, saying that at the last adjourned date he requested for a statement the witness took from the Managing Director of the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting which he intended to use in court , but the prosecution gave him the document barely 20 minutes before the proceedings.

According to him, the report was a six-page document which ought to have been made available to the defence 48 or at least 24 hours before the day’s proceedings.

“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 said.

Ojo, further applied for an adjournment, stressing that the court is a court of record.

Responding, Mohammed told the court that the prosecution did not deliberately delay the investigation report to disadvantage the defence.

“My Lord, the decision to bring the investigation report today was not to deny the defence or the defendant access to the document. On the last adjourned date, during the cross-examination of PW7, learned defence counsel asked the witness whether an investigation report was made and demanded that it be produced,” he said.

He argued that the investigation report was a document meant to be produced by the witness in court.

Opposing the application for adjournment, Mohammed urged the court to direct the defence to proceed with the cross-examination.

“My Lord, we have other dates to take issues relating to the investigation report. We pray that today’s proceedings be exhausted,” he said.

Justice Anineh ruled that the cross-examination of PW7 should continue.

Following the ruling, Ojo, SAN, resumed cross-examination of the witness.

He questioned PW7 on an email exchange between the Managing Director of the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company and De La Rue.

Asked who made the email available to the EFCC team, the witness responded: “My Lord, the email was made available to our team by the Managing Director of Printing and Minting.”

When asked how many statements the Managing Director made, the witness replied: “I cannot remember, but he made statements.”

Asked to identify the Managing Director, the witness said: “My Lord, his name is Ahmed Halilu.”

Ojo further asked whether the witness’s team inquired if the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company had ever designed currency in Nigeria. The witness responded that he could not remember.

Asked whether he was the officer who directly interacted with the Managing Director, the witness answered in the affirmative.

On when his team concluded the investigation, the witness stated that he could not be certain.

The defence counsel asked whether the witness’s team inquired from CBN officials the quantity of new naira notes released to Nigerians. The witness answered: “Yes, My Lord.”

Asked how much the CBN said it released to commercial banks across the country, the witness responded: “I do not have that available.”

When asked if he had the information documented somewhere, the witness replied: “I cannot be certain.”

Asked if he would like to refresh his memory, the witness answered: “Yes, My Lord.”

Ojo further asked whether the witness and his team went round the country to check the amount released to different commercial banks.

The witness responded: “My Lord, we had different teams across the country alongside other law enforcement agencies. The teams went round to ensure that the currencies were made available over the counter.”

Asked whether some banks were hoarding the currencies, the witness said: “My Lord, I am aware that there were such cases, but I cannot be specific.”

When the defence asked whether the witness’s team arrested anyone over the alleged infractions, prosecution counsel objected.

Mohammed argued that: “The witness is only here to give evidence on the investigation regarding the approval of the naira redesign and not on issues outside the substance of the charge.”

Responding, Ojo maintained that: “Cross-examination is not limited to evidence in chief.”

Pressing further, the defence counsel asked whether the witness arrested anybody for the infractions.

Emefiele

The witness responded:
“As at the time, I was the head of the team and was also supervising other assignments. I also stated before this court that the EFCC raised a task force that visited different parts of the country. That is why I cannot be specific, because I was not physically present.”

Asked whether he knew what the EFCC did to banks found wanting, the witness said he was not aware.

Asked if he was aware whether the CBN tasked the EFCC to visit and sanction erring banks, the witness replied that he was not aware.

Asked on whose instruction the EFCC acted during the visits, the witness stated that he was not privy to that information.

The defence counsel again requested an adjournment, stating that the prosecution had informed him that it did not have the original statement of the Managing Director of Printing and Minting.

Responding, the prosecution team stated that the Managing Director had already testified before the court as PW2, and that all relevant documents were already before the court.

Justice Anineh thereafter adjourned the matter to March 19; April 1 and 2; May 11 and 12; and June 9 and 10, 2026, for continuation of trial.

Atiku: Senate’s Adoption Of Manual, E-transmission Of Election Results Recipe For Chaos, Unacceptable

Atiku: Senate’s adoption of manual, e-transmission of election results recipe for chaos, unacceptable. Mr Abubakar maintained that Nigerians were expecting outright real-time electronic transmission.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has rejected the amended Electoral Act, allowing both real-time electronic and manual transmission of election results, arguing that the move will create further chaos.

After initially removing the clause mandating the live transmission of election results, the Senate, on Tuesday, backtracked and amended the Electoral Act, making it compulsory for presiding officers at each polling unit to electronically upload election results to the IREV portal in real time.

However, the new amendment allows the use of manual result sheets (Form EC8A) for election results collation in cases where electronic transmission fails due to network communication issues, a decision that has become the subject of debate among the public.

Mr Abubakar, while addressing journalists following a closed-door meeting with former Nigerian military ruler Ibrahim Babangida in Minna, Niger State, on Tuesday, maintained that Nigerians were expecting outright real-time electronic transmission.

Atiku

“Nigerians were expecting real-time electronic transfer at the various levels of elections, but what we got is a mixture of electronic and manual transmission, which is going to cause more confusion and chaos than if we had a single-tier transmission system,” Mr Abubakar said.

Speaking further, the former Peoples Democratic Party’s presidential candidate recommended that every opposition party must come together to pursue the case, adding that electronic transmission of results alone is better for Nigeria.

“I think there is a need for all the opposition parties to come together to pursue this issue. We shouldn’t allow it to rest where they wanted it to rest today. I don’t support that,” the politician stated.

High Court Orders Final Forfeiture Of N178,966,938, Properties, Vehicles Linked To Unlawful Activities In Lagos

High Court orders final forfeiture of N178,966,938, properties, vehicles linked to unlawful activities in Lagos. Justice C.J. Aneke of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, on Monday, February 10, 2026, ordered the final forfeiture of N178,966,938, multiple landed properties and vehicles reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

The judge gave the order following a motion on notice filed by the Lagos Zonal Directorate 1 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, in Suit No. FHC/L/MISC/1311/2025.

Justice Aneke had earlier ordered the interim forfeiture of the assets and directed the publication of the order in a national newspaper for any interested party to show cause why the properties should not be finally forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

Moving the application for the final forfeiture, the EFCC counsel, Zeenat Atiku informed the court that the application was supported by an affidavit deposed to and signed by Isah Yusuf Nadabo, an operative of the EFCC, showing that the funds and properties were traced to Stanley Akaria Chinemerem and are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

Also forfeited is a fully detached six-bedroom duplex built on approximately 722.332 square metres at Nnabuenyi Street (formerly described as AMORC), within the Onigbanko Royal Family Land, Abule Oshun, Amuwo Odofin Local Government Area of Lagos State.

The court equally ordered the forfeiture of two undeveloped parcels of land located at Onireke Town, opposite Ojo Barracks, Amuwo Odofin LGA, Lagos State, measuring 667.070 square metres and one plot measuring 60ft by 120ft, respectively.

Federal High Court

Two vehicles were also forfeited: a black 2012 Toyota Highlander Jeep with registration number LND 401JC, and a red 2018 Toyota Venza with plate number FCT 998 JX.

The Commission had earlier secured an interim forfeiture order on December 12, 2025, which was published in The Punch newspaper on January 8, 2026, in compliance with the court’s directive. The respondent was also personally served, but no individual or corporate body came forward to contest the forfeiture.

Justice Aneke, after considering the application, held that it had merit and ordered the final forfeiture of the assets to the Federal Government of Nigeria.