Defence closes case as witness claims EFCC officials assured former Accountant-General would be released before she signed statement as witness
By A1NEWS International – June 25, 2026
ABUJA, Nigeria — The trial of former Accountant-General of the Federation, Ahmed Idris, over the alleged fraudulent diversion of N109.5 billion moved a step closer to a critical legal determination on Wednesday as the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, fixed October 13, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses in the ongoing trial-within-trial.
Justice Yusuf Halilu adjourned proceedings after the defence concluded its case in the mini-trial, which is aimed at determining whether statements allegedly made by Idris to investigators of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) were obtained voluntarily or through inducement and deception.
The outcome of the trial-within-trial is expected to significantly influence the substantive corruption case involving one of the most high-profile financial crime prosecutions in recent years.
EFCC’s N109.5 Billion Fraud Allegations
Ahmed Idris is standing trial alongside Geoffrey Olusegun Akindele, Mohammed Kudu Usman, and Gezawa Commodity Market and Exchange Limited on a 14-count charge filed by the EFCC.
The anti-graft agency alleges that the defendants engaged in the diversion and misappropriation of public funds amounting to N109.5 billion.
The charges border on stealing, criminal breach of trust, and fraudulent diversion of government resources, allegations that the defendants have consistently denied.
The case has attracted national attention because Idris served as the nation’s chief accounting officer and was responsible for overseeing federal financial transactions during his tenure.
How the Trial-Within-Trial Began
The trial-within-trial commenced on November 22, 2022, following objections raised by Idris’ lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), regarding the admissibility of statements obtained by the EFCC during investigations.
The defence argued that the statements were not voluntarily made and alleged that investigators employed deception and inducements to secure them.
Under Nigerian law, where the voluntariness of a confessional statement is challenged, courts are required to conduct a separate proceeding—known as a trial-within-trial—to determine whether such evidence can be admitted during the substantive trial.
The present proceedings are therefore focused solely on the circumstances surrounding the taking of the statements rather than the substantive allegations of fraud.
Defence Witness Testifies on Events at EFCC Headquarters
At Wednesday’s proceedings, the defence called Hajiya Safiya Idris as its witness.
Giving evidence before the court, Safiya described herself as a long-time family associate of the former Accountant-General and said she regarded him “like a father.”
She narrated events surrounding her visit to the EFCC headquarters in Abuja on June 6, 2022.
According to her testimony, she had gone to the commission’s office in an attempt to see Idris while he was in EFCC custody.
She told the court that officials initially informed her that Idris was not being held in a detention cell but was inside one of the commission’s offices.
After waiting for an extended period, she said she was eventually granted access to the office where Idris was located.
Witness Alleges Promise of Release Influenced Her Actions
Safiya testified that upon entering the office, two EFCC officials identified as Hayatu and Mahmud requested that she sign as a witness to a statement being prepared by Idris.
She acknowledged that the signature and handwriting appearing on the statement belonged to her.
The witness further claimed that she agreed to sign the document after receiving assurances that Idris would be released.
According to her testimony, this assurance influenced her decision to append her signature to the statement.
Her evidence forms part of the defence’s argument that circumstances surrounding the obtaining of the statements may have affected their voluntariness.
Cross-Examination Reveals Key Contradictions
During cross-examination by prosecution counsel A.O. Atolagbe, several issues emerged regarding the witness’s account.
Safiya admitted that she was not under investigation by the EFCC and had visited the agency voluntarily.
She further acknowledged that the statement had already been written before she entered the office and that she merely signed it after its completion.
The prosecution also questioned her regarding a section of the statement indicating that Idris was writing the statement in her presence.
Asked whether that portion had been written before or after she entered the room, she stated that she could not determine when it was inserted.
She also confirmed that her name did not appear on any of the defendant’s previous statements because she was not present during those interviews.
No Complaint Filed Against Investigators
One aspect of the testimony that drew attention was the witness’s admission that she never lodged a complaint against EFCC officials after signing the document.
Under questioning, she acknowledged that she was under no obligation to write or sign anything because she was not a suspect in the investigation.
Despite this, she maintained before the court that she was truthful when she wrote that the statement was taken in her presence.
Following the conclusion of cross-examination, the prosecution indicated that it had no further questions, and the witness was subsequently discharged.
Defence Closes Case
After the witness completed her testimony, lead defence counsel Chris Uche (SAN) informed the court that the defence had concluded its case in the trial-within-trial.
With both sides having presented their positions, the proceedings have now moved into the final argument stage.
Justice Halilu subsequently directed parties to file and adopt their final written addresses before the court.
Legal analysts say the court’s eventual ruling will determine whether the disputed statements can be admitted as evidence during the main corruption trial.
Why the Court’s Decision Matters
The admissibility of confessional and investigative statements often plays a significant role in criminal prosecutions, particularly in complex financial crime cases involving documentary evidence and multiple defendants.
Should the court find that the statements were voluntarily made, they may form part of the prosecution’s evidence in the substantive trial.
Conversely, a ruling in favour of the defence could exclude the statements from the proceedings, potentially affecting aspects of the prosecution’s case.
The decision is therefore expected to have important implications for the ongoing trial.
As the legal battle over the alleged N109.5 billion fraud enters another crucial phase, attention now shifts to October 13, 2026, when both parties are expected to adopt their final written addresses in the trial-within-trial.
The court’s eventual ruling on the admissibility of Ahmed Idris’ statements could shape the trajectory of one of Nigeria’s most closely watched corruption cases, while also providing further judicial guidance on the standards governing the voluntariness of evidence obtained during criminal investigations.
Leave a Reply