A dramatic twist has emerged in the ongoing criminal trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria governor, Godwin Emefiele, as a defence witness alleged that operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission tried to force his client to implicate the ex‑CBN chief.

The witness, lawyer Nnamdi Offial, told the Special Offences Court in Ikeja that investigators repeatedly pressured his client, businessman Henry Omoile, to “cooperate” by providing statements that would incriminate Emefiele in a multibillion‑dollar corruption case.

Emefiele and Omoile are standing trial on allegations involving the handling of about 4.5 billion dollars and 2.8 million naira, including counts of accepting gratification, receiving gifts through agents, corruption, fraudulent receipt of property and conferring corrupt advantages on associates, contrary to the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act. Both men have pleaded not guilty.

The latest revelations came during a trial‑within‑trial ordered by Justice Rahman Oshodi. The limited inquiry is meant to determine whether statements attributed to Omoile by the EFCC were made voluntarily or obtained under improper pressure, a question that could determine whether those statements are admissible as evidence in the main trial.

Testifying for the defence, Offial said EFCC operatives made it clear to Omoile that his fate depended on how far he was willing to go in linking Emefiele to alleged financial crimes.

According to him, the head of the EFCC interrogation team told Omoile that if he “cooperated” and gave investigators what they wanted, he could secure bail and possibly avoid prosecution altogether. The alleged inducements, he said, were explicitly tied to providing incriminating information against the former CBN governor.

Offial described interrogation sessions in which, he claimed, investigators dictated the direction of the narrative and blocked any attempt by his client to give answers that did not fit their expectations.

“On several occasions, questions were put to the second defendant and he answered, but he was not allowed to write them down because the answers did not conform to what the interrogators wanted him to say. I objected to this many times,” he told the court.

The lawyer said the EFCC adopted a rigid question‑and‑answer format, insisting that Omoile’s written statement mirror the version of events they were seeking to establish. When his client’s oral responses diverged from that line, he alleged, investigators simply refused to record them.

Offial recounted that after an interrogation session on 26 February, officers informed him that Omoile would remain in custody. When he returned to the EFCC office the next day, he said he discovered that his client was already being questioned in his absence, contrary to what he considered proper procedure for a suspect represented by counsel.

He said he challenged the officers over the ongoing interrogation without him present, which led to a confrontation with an operative he identified as David. The disagreement escalated, and Offial told the court he was escorted out of the premises.

“I reported the incident to the team leader, who asked me to remain in the waiting area,” he said, adding that he was effectively shut out of the process for the rest of the day.

According to him, he did not see his client again until about 8pm, when officers brought Omoile back to the detention facility. By then, he said, it was clear that the EFCC was unwilling to release him.

“Later, I was told that he had refused to cooperate with them and that they were not going to release him. That was when I applied for bail from the EFCC zonal head,” Offial testified.

He told the court that Omoile remained in EFCC custody for 21 days, a period he considered excessive and unlawful. The prolonged detention, he said, prompted him to file a fundamental rights enforcement suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos, challenging the legality of his client’s continued incarceration.

In that separate proceeding, Offial said, Justice Muslim Hamza granted bail to Omoile but ordered that he be remanded at the Ikoyi Correctional Centre until he could meet the bail conditions. The judge, however, did not make any formal finding that the EFCC had acted improperly in the course of its investigation.

Under cross‑examination by EFCC lead prosecutor, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Rotimi Oyedepo, the defence witness was pressed on the extent of his involvement in the statement‑taking process and on whether he had taken any formal steps to challenge the alleged misconduct.

Offial conceded that investigators had properly cautioned Omoile in his presence before taking his statement, and that his client signed the caution. He also admitted that he participated in the process and understood that anything written down could later be used against Omoile in court.

When asked whether he had lodged a formal complaint or petition against the EFCC over the alleged coercion and exclusion from the interrogation room, Offial said he had not done so. He further acknowledged that the Federal High Court, in ruling on the fundamental rights suit, did not indict the EFCC for any wrongdoing.