GLITZ TV
The Federal Capital Territory High Court has given permission to Godwin Emefiele, the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, to travel outside of Abuja. This decision was made after considering the application for a modification of Emefiele’s bail conditions, which was filed by his lawyer, Mathew Bukka. However, it is important to note that the court’s permission does not authorize Emefiele to leave the country.
As part of the court’s ruling, Emefiele is to be immediately released to his lawyers. He has been instructed to appear in court for his arraignment next week or on another designated day. Additionally, Emefiele is required to surrender his passport and other travel documents to the court’s registrar until his arraignment.
There have been concerns raised about the judge’s handling of Emefiele’s bail. It has been alleged that the judge refused to allow the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to process Emefiele after granting him bail. Furthermore, although the judge ordered that Emefiele’s international documents be deposited with the court’s registrar, sources indicate that this has not been done by the former CBN governor and his legal team, yet he was still permitted to return home.
There have been concerns raised regarding the judge’s handling of Godwin Emefiele’s bail in relation to the following matters:
1. Processing by the EFCC: It has been alleged that the judge refused to allow the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to process Emefiele after granting him bail. The specific reasons for this alleged refusal are not provided in the available information.
2. Control-compliance with depositing documents: The judge had directed that Emefiele’s “international documents must be deposited with the registrar of this court pending the determination of his case.” However, sources indicate that Emefiele and his legal team did not comply with this requirement by submitting the necessary documents. Despite the non-compliance, Emefiele was allowed to return home.
The concerns raised suggest potential inconsistencies in the judge’s handling of the bail conditions and the enforcement of the court’s directives. However, further details or elaboration on the specific reasons behind these concerns are not available in the provided information.
