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.