Gurumnaan, the seventh prosecution witness in the trial, said investigations had led to the recovery and forfeiture of properties allegedly linked to Emefiele in Lagos, Delta, Ogun and the Federal Capital Territory.
He also told the court that investigators recovered more than $2 million in cash from the office of a lawyer, Ifeanyi Omeke, who allegedly admitted acting as a front for the former CBN governor and receiving money on his behalf.
The investigator gave the evidence on Thursday while testifying before Justice Rahman Oshodi in the trial of Emefiele and his co-defendant, Henry Omoile.
Emefiele is facing a 19-count charge bordering on alleged gratification, corrupt demands and abuse of office involving transactions valued at $4.5bn and N2.8bn, while Omoile is facing a separate three-count charge of alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts.
Led in evidence by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), Gurumnaan said Emefiele’s statement was recorded during an investigation conducted by the special operations team under his leadership.
He alleged that the former CBN governor abused his position to create a system that made it difficult for ordinary Nigerians and business owners to obtain foreign exchange for legitimate transactions.
According to the witness, some business operators were forced to enter into special arrangements allegedly imposed by Emefiele before they could access foreign exchange.
Citing one of the alleged transactions, Gurumnaan said a company paid millions of dollars to Emefiele through his staff member, Monday Osazuwa.
“One of those examples was how a company had to pay millions of dollars to the first defendant through his staff, Monday Osazuwa.
“Osazuwa admitted to us in the course of the investigation that he received about $17 million from the company and gave it to the second defendant sometime.
“The second defendant was the one who later took the money to the first defendant,” he told the court.
He also referred to Source Computer, alleging that the company’s managing director was compelled to make payments to Emefiele before outstanding contract fees could be released.
The witness subsequently outlined several properties allegedly acquired by the former CBN governor through associates, arguing that their combined value was far beyond his legitimate earnings while in office.
He said the EFCC had secured several court judgments leading to the forfeiture of assets allegedly connected to Emefiele, with their estimated value running into hundreds of billions of naira.
Gurumnaan identified Omeke, a lawyer who allegedly acted as an intermediary for Emefiele, as one of the individuals whose activities featured prominently in the investigation.
“The first defendant used associates who also admitted to receiving money on his behalf. One of them is a lawyer called Ifeanyin Omeke, whose office our investigation led us to, and a sum of over $2 million in cash was recovered.
“This same Omeke serves as secretary to several companies, and he admitted to being a front for the first defendant.
“We recovered a set of twin duplexes in Lekki Phase 1 and also two mansions on Queen’s Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos,” he said.
The investigator added that Emefiele was given an opportunity to respond to some of the findings during the investigation and the recording of his statement but did not address the allegations.
He further disclosed that investigations uncovered a factory under construction in Agbor, Delta State, Emefiele’s hometown, which he said had been forfeited to the Federal Government.
Another property identified by the witness was a block of eight flats on Adekunle Lawal Street, Ikoyi, Lagos, which he alleged previously belonged to the Nigerian Printing and Minting Company, where Emefiele had served as board chairman.
Gurumnaan also mentioned a warehouse in Ogun State, on the outskirts of Lagos, which investigators allegedly recovered and linked to the former CBN governor.
He said the facility contained several containers, with their estimated value running into hundreds of billions of naira.
Other properties listed included an 11-storey building under construction in Ikoyi, comprising about 94 luxury flats, and an industrial park being developed in Amuwo Odofin, Lagos.
He also identified an estate of approximately 750 housing units in the Lokogoma District of Abuja as part of the assets allegedly linked to Emefiele.
However, the testimony prompted objections from the defence teams, who argued that the prosecution was introducing allegations and evidence that were not contained in the proof of evidence earlier served on the defendants.
Emefiele’s lead counsel, Ojo Olalekan (SAN), and Omoile’s counsel, Kazeem Gbadamosi, challenged the admissibility of the testimony relating to the properties and the alleged recovery of money from Omeke’s office.
Counsel to the former CBN governor argued that the prosecution could not introduce additional facts through a witness without first filing and serving supplementary proof of evidence on the defence.
Relying on Section 251 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2015, he maintained that the provision clearly prescribed the information required in a criminal charge and imposed a mandatory obligation on the prosecution.
He stressed that the objection was not about the defence’s ability to cross-examine the witness but the prosecution’s alleged failure to comply with the relevant legal requirements.
Omoile’s counsel aligned himself with the objection, arguing that an investigating officer’s testimony should be restricted to findings directly connected with the offences for which the defendants were standing trial.
He maintained that the properties mentioned by the witness had not been established as having any connection with the charges before the court.
In response, Oyedepo argued that the investigator was entitled to testify about discoveries made during the investigation, particularly where they related to the alleged acquisition of assets with proceeds of gratification.
The prosecution maintained that the evidence was relevant to its case that Emefiele allegedly used money received through corrupt transactions to acquire properties beyond his legitimate means.
It also argued that the defendants would not suffer any prejudice because they retained the right to challenge the testimony through cross-examination.
In his ruling, Justice Oshodi dismissed the objection, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Ugwuma v. The State (2018).
The judge cited the principle established in the case that an investigating police officer could testify about matters personally seen, witnessed or discovered in the course of an investigation.
He consequently permitted Gurumnaan to continue his testimony, while preserving the defence’s right to cross-examine him.
During the subsequent proceedings, the witness sought to identify a certified true copy of a Supreme Court judgment relating to some of the properties mentioned in his testimony.
The defence again objected, arguing that the document had not been sufficiently disclosed before the hearing to allow them adequate time to examine it and prepare their response.
Justice Oshodi deferred consideration of the document and the defence’s objection until the next sitting.
The court subsequently adjourned the case until November 13, 2026, for continuation of the trial and further consideration of the document.
