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.

EFCC Presents First Witness Against Austrian Arrested For Undeclared $800,575, €651,505 At Airport

EFCC presents first witness against Austrian arrested For undeclared $800,575, €651,505 at Airport. The Lagos Zonal Directorate 2 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC,  on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, presented its first prosecution witness, PW1, Yusuf Suleiman, an officer with the Nigerian Customs Service, NCS, in the trial of Kavlak Onal, an Austrian national arrested by the NCS for allegedly failing to declare the sums of $800,575 and €651,505 in his possession before Justice Yelim Bogoro of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos

Onal, who was scheduled to travel on Emirates Airline to Dubai, was intercepted by operatives of the NCS during a routine check at the AML/ CFT Currency Declaration Desk on Tuesday, December 16, 2025 at Murtala Mohammed International Airport, Ikeja, Lagos.

He was subsequently handed over to the EFCC for further investigation and prosecution.

Upon completion of investigation, the defendant was arraigned on Friday, January 9, 2026 on a two-count charge bordering on money laundering.

Count one reads: “That you, Mr. Kavlak Onal, on December 13th, in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, failed to make a declaration of the sum of $800,575 (Eight Hundred Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy Five United States Dollars) to the Nigeria Customs Service at the Murtala Mohammed International Airport, Ikeja, Lagos and you thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 3 (5) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition and Prevention) Act, 2022.”

Count two reads: “That you, Mr. Kavlak Onal, on the 13th December, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, failed to make a declaration of the sum of €651,505(Six Hundred and Fifty One Thousand, Five Hundred and Five Euro) to the Nigeria Customs Service at the Murtala Mohammed International Airport, Ikeja, Lagos and you thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 3 (5) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition and Prevention) Act, 2022.”

The defendant pleaded “not guilty” to the charges when they were read to him

At the resumed sitting on Tuesday, Yusuf, a profiling officer with the NCS attached to Murtala Mohammed International Airport, Ikeja, told the court that he was approached to clear a sick traveler who claimed he had no funds to declare.

He said that upon further inspection, he discovered bundles of the United States Dollars and Euros in Onal’s possession.

“When passengers come to the airport, there is a public announcement station that informs the general public that any passenger in possession of currency in excess of $10,000 should declare with the Nigerian Customs Service point,” he said.

Led in evidence by the prosecution counsel, Bilikisu Buhari Bala, he further told the court that there are also pieces of signage fixed at both the inbound and outbound entrances of the airport, so passengers can know the points to declare the currencies in their possession.

Giving further testimony, the PW1 said: “On the signage, there is information guiding passengers to declare the currency electronically and there is a flyer for them to go through to make that declaration. With this, passengers can declare before coming into the airport, at their homes or while at the airport premises, electronically.”

When asked how he knew the defendant, he said: “A protocol officer approached me at my duty post, saying a passenger was sick and also requested if I could assist him to take the passenger to the boarding gate.

“When I asked the protocol officer if he had asked the passenger if he had any currency to declare, he said he had done so and that the passenger said he did not have any money in his possession to be declared.

“So, I asked the protocol officer to call the passenger, so I could ask him personally if he had any money to be declared.

“The protocol officer called Mr. Onal and then I asked him to declare the money in his possession in the presence of another colleague, Joshua Ogundire.

“We both asked him and he said he did not have any money.

“I then asked my colleague to collect the bag and search. During the search, a huge amount of money was discovered in different denominations: Dollars and Euros.”

He further told the court that when the bag was opened, it was discovered that it was filled with currencies.

“At that point, I escalated it to my 2-i-C.

“When my colleague left, Mr. Onal pleaded with him that he could raise some amount for him, so he could let him go. That was when he observed that Mr. Onal was healthy and not ill as we were earlier told.

“When my colleague got back with my 2-i-C, I called upon my superior to inform her about what had transpired.

“All the while, Mr. Onal was still pleading with us not to make any calls, saying he could settle us and leave.”

The PWI also stated that when his superior officer asked them to confirm the amount and he asked the defendant, he claimed he didn’t know the exact amount.

According to him, “When I entered the search room alongside the protocol officer to confirm the money, we found out it was $800,585 and €651,505 after counting it.”

When the defendant was asked if he knew about the NCS point and if that was the first time he was carrying such an amount, he admitted to knowing the point as a frequent traveller, and that he had carried the sums of $20,000 to $30,000 in the past but never as much as he had on him on that day.

The PW1 further told the court that the money was counted and that some were in bundles, while some were in envelopes with names written on them.

He said: “We informed our boss, who then instructed us to give him the statement form to write what had transpired.

“His statement was taken and he was later handed over to their Area Comptroller, with his statement, international passport, boarding pass and money for investigation.”

According to him, after the investigation by the Area Comptroller, the defendant was handed over to the EFCC as well as the currencies discovered in his possession, international passport, boarding pass and his statement.

The prosecution counsel, through the PW1, then sought to tender the statement form as form as an exhibit.

The defence counsel, Victor Okpara SAN, however, raised an objection to its admissibility, saying that “it is a product of unacceptable inducement and was not a statement voluntarily made.”

He, therefore, urged the court to order a trial-within-trial.

In view of this, the prosecution sought to withdraw the statement sought to be tendered, which was granted by the court.

During cross-examination, Okpara asked how long the witness had spent with the NCS and the responsibility of the Desk, to which he responded that he had been with the Agency since 2011, and that his duty at the airport include monitoring, control and profiling of passengers to ensure they declare their currencies, while also preventing any illicit currency passing through the NCS jurisdiction.

When asked if the signage at the Airport are translated into different languages, giving the influx of several nationals from around the world who use the facility, the witness replied that the signage are couched in English as French

Also, when asked if the defendant’s statement was taken at the Customs’ Desk and if there was a lawyer present, the witness confirmed that it was taken at the NCS’ Desk and that he had his protocol officer with him all through.

EFCC

When asked to confirm that the Immigration officer said the passenger had cardiovascular issues and that he needed to be helped to the boarding gate, the witness said he was only told that the passenger was ill , adding that he asked the protocol officer if he had asked the passenger if he had any currency to declare.

During further cross-examination, the defence counsel said that the defendant, who was physically at the airport, did not fill any form stating he had no currency or that he under-declared.

The defence counsel also said that if there was to be any declaration, it would have been done at the Customs Desk

Responding, the witness stated that nothing stops the defendant from making the declaration at the Customs Desk as well as online or even the request form from the airline.

When asked if he wrote a statement at the EFCC during the investigation, he replied: “Yes.”

Also, when asked if he knew that the defendant also wrote a statement at the EFCC during investigation, which was different from the one made with the NCS, he said he was not aware, and that the defendant wrote his statement with the NCS under no duress.

The defence counsel stated also that the defendant told him that he did not carry any money on him but that he had money in his luggage.

He also said that the search was conducted when the defendant said he did not know how much was in his luggage.

In his response, the witness disagreed with all the submissions, saying that the defendant said, right in front of his colleagues, and his protocol officer, that he did not have any money on him to be declared.

When asked if there was any document showing that he signed on the money counted and that it was also counter-signed by the defendant, the witness said: “I made a statement after counting and wrote the figures and what had transpired.”

Justice Bogoro adjourned till February 27, 2026 for the continuation of trial.

High Court: Subpoena Dispute Stalls Examination Of Access Bank Witness In ₦110.4bn Kogi Fraud Trial

High Court: Subpoena dispute stalls examination of Access Bank witness in ₦110.4bn Kogi fraud trial. Arguments over the examination of a subpoenaed prosecution witness in the trial of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Adoza Bello, on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, stalled proceedings  before Justice Maryanne Anineh of the Federal High Court, FCT, Abuja.

Bello is standing trial alongside Umar Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu on a 16-count charge bordering on criminal breach of trust and money laundering to the tune of an alleged ₦110.4 billion.

At the resumed proceedings, lead prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, informed the court that the matter was for continuation of trial and that Prosecution Witness Ten (PW10), Olomotane Egoro, a Compliance Officer with Access Bank, who was under subpoena, was present in court.

Pinheiro subsequently sought to tender the application for the issuance of the subpoena, which was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit AE, there being no objection from defence counsel, P.B. Daudu, SAN, and Z.E. Abbas.

However, when the prosecution moved to examine the witness, P.B. Daudu, SAN, and   Z.E. Abbas objected, contending that the prosecution could not examine the witness on the basis of a mere application for subpoena, insisting that the subpoena itself ought to be produced and tendered before the witness could testify.

In response, Pinheiro argued that the subpoena formed part of the court’s record, having been issued pursuant to an order of court, and that the court was entitled to look at any process contained in its records.

He further submitted that there was no statutory provision requiring the tendering of a subpoena before a witness subpoenaed by the court could give evidence, noting that there were a plethora of authorities supporting his position and describing the objection as “clearly untenable.”

Replying on points of law, Daudu maintained that it was the constitutional right of the defence to be fully carried along in the proceedings, stressing that the trial was a public one and not a secret trial, and that the defence was entitled to see and obtain a copy of the subpoena.

Yahaya Bello

Counsel to the third defendant, Abbas, also argued that the subpoena formed the basis of the witness’s appearance in court and that the defence was entitled to examine it before the trial could proceed, adding that the authorities cited by the prosecution were not applicable to the circumstances of the case.

Pinheiro, in a further response, described the objection as an attempt to delay the trial, an assertion Daudu refuted, stating that the defence was not in court to frustrate proceedings.

In her ruling, Justice Anineh held that, having considered the arguments of counsel, the subpoena could always be produced before the court.

She consequently adjourned the matter to February 11 and 12, and March 11 and 12, 2026, for continuation of trial.