By Miriam Humbe
Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, on Thursday, July 9, 2026, admitted in evidence the extra-judicial statement of a lawyer, Olasubomi Osinusi, who is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, over the alleged forgery of documents relating to the sum of $6,520,190 (Six Million, Five Hundred and Twenty Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety United States Dollars).
Dele Oyewale, the EFCC’s Head, Media & Publicity disclosed this in a statement.
At Thursday’s proceedings, the first prosecution witness, PW1, Umar Hussain Babangida, an Assistant Commissioner of Police and an EFCC investigator, while being led in evidence by the prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, SAN, told the court that the defendant made the statement voluntarily in the presence of a witness, Oluwatosin Alamu, after the words of caution had been read to him and he confirmed that he understood them.
When copies of the defendant’s statements were shown to the witness, Babangida identified them as the statements made by Osinusi.
According to Babangida, the defendant informed investigators that he had known one Emenike Imana since his youth, describing him as a legal practitioner based in the United Kingdom.
He added that Osinusi’s statement formed part of the Commission’s investigation.
Babangida further testified that the defendant stated that Imana contacted him to assist in authenticating the statement of one Dan Mohammed Jafaru, claiming that he had already verified the statement.
However, Osinusi admitted that he did not independently verify the statement and that he did not know Dan Mohammed Jafaru.
Babangida further told the court that Osinusi admitted that Jafaru did not sign the statement in his presence. He also stated that he neither knew Dr. Louis Emover Williams nor had any communication with him.
Babangida further testified that Osinusi disclosed that a letter dated October 29, 2015, was dictated to him over the telephone by Emenike Imana.
He said he made some input into the draft before forwarding it to Imana.
According to the witness, Osinusi further revealed that an amended version of the letter was later returned to him.
He reproduced it on his law firm’s letterhead, signed it and addressed it to Dr. Louis Emover Williams.
Babangida also told the court that Osinusi stated that the amended draft was forwarded to him by email on Sunday, November 15, 2015, with a request that the letter be ready urgently for Monday.
He assured Imana that it would be ready, signed it and returned it to him, adding that he never heard from Imana afterwards.
The witness further stated that Osinusi admitted that he did not independently verify the contents of the letter or ascertain whether Jafaru was indeed a military officer serving at the Supreme Military Headquarters.
Rather, he acted solely on the information supplied by his friend and colleague, Imana.
Babangida added that Osinusi also volunteered to provide the EFCC with the email correspondence between himself and Imana.
The defence counsel, D. S. Showemimo, SAN, objected to the admissibility of the defendant’s statements, arguing that the prosecution failed to comply with the provisions of Section 35 of the Police Act and Section 9 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
He further submitted that the statements were not made under the conditions prescribed by law, noting that there was no video recording of the interview and that the defendant’s counsel was not present when the statements were made.
He, therefore, urged the court to reject the statements.
In response, Mohammed argued that the statements were voluntarily made and signed by the defendant in the presence of a witness, Oluwatosin Alamu, chosen by him during the interrogation.
He urged the court to admit them in evidence and to take judicial notice of the cautionary words contained in the proof of evidence.
The prosecuting counsel further submitted that the law does not make video recording a mandatory condition for the admissibility of a defendant’s statement, adding that the Supreme Court has consistently held that a voluntary statement remains admissible even where no video recording exists.
In her ruling, Justice Dada held that the defendant’s confessional statement clearly showed that he confirmed he was not under any form of duress while making it.
“His written statement, in the absence of a video recording, does not render it inadmissible. The extra-judicial statement of the defendant is hereby admitted in evidence,” the judge ruled.
The court consequently admitted the defendant’s statements as exhibits.
Justice Dada, thereafter, adjourned the matter to Thursday, November 5; Thursday, November 12; Monday, November 23; and Tuesday, November 24, 2026, for the continuation of trial.
