Ruling on the matter, Justice Oshodi held that the court has jurisdiction to hear 13 of the charges brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The judge, however, struck out counts one to four on the ground that the offences described in those counts were unknown to law.
The former CBN boss was arraigned before the court by the EFCC alongside one Herry Omoile on allegations of accepting gratification, corruption, and fraudulent activities.
The anti-graft agency also accused Emefiele of conferring corrupt advantages on his associates contrary to the Corrupt Practices Act 2000.
The defendants had pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Emefiele had argued through his lawyer, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), that a State High Court cannot try his client as Governor of CBN, and in view of significant constitutional and legal issues.
The EFCC, however, argued through its lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), that the allegations against Emefiele are economic and financial crimes, which the EFCC is statutorily empowered to investigate and prosecute before the court.
Oyedepo also submitted that the proper venue wherein the defendants can be tried for the alleged offences is Lagos State, wherein all the ingredients of the alleged offences took place.
In his ruling, Justice Oshodi held that while counts one to four pertain to the general offence of abuse of office as defined by criminal law, the specific actions alleged in the counts—namely, the allocation of foreign exchange without a bid—are not defined as an offence in any written law. As a result, the court struck out the charges.
On counts eight to 26, the judge held that by applying established legal principles, the evidence presented was sufficient to affirm the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
He pointed out that his decision was strictly limited to the jurisdictional objection and does not speak to the merits of the allegations against Emefiele.
Justice Rahman Oshodi subsequently ruled that the objection challenging the court’s territorial jurisdiction over counts eight to 26 failed and was thus dismissed.
The matter was adjourned to February 24 and 26, for the continuation of the trial.