Godwin Emefiele, the former governor of the Central Bank, has accused an EFCC witness of deliberately misleading the Maitama Division of the FCT High Court by submitting a contentious oral testimony in the forgery allegations preferred against him.

Forensic analyst and handwriting expert Baimayi Haruna Mairiga, the EFCC witness, testified against Mr Emefiele on Wednesday. He stated that the signatures on the document used to withdraw $6.2 million from government coffers purportedly intended to pay foreign election observers in the 2023 elections did not match the signatures of Boss Mustapha and former President Muhammadu Buhari.

Mr Mairiga said that after thoroughly analysing the specimen and disputed signatures, he and the team of forensic experts at the EFCC determined that the signature on the document tendered to withdraw millions of dollars was forged.

But Matthew Burkaa, Mr Emefiele’s lead counsel, grilled the witness for nearly two hours.

First, he asked Mr Mairiga whether he was an EFCC operative, and the witness responded that he had been with the anti-corruption agency on secondment from the Nigeria Immigration Service since 2018.

Mr Burkaa then asked Mr Mairiga if it was correct to prove that in Question Document Analysis (QDA), an examiner must compare the originals with originals instead of the originals with photocopies. 

The witness answered that the two sets of documents (original and original), (original and fake) must be compared. In the case where photocopies are extremely clear, further examination will be conducted.

Mr Burkaa expressed dissatisfaction that the witness was explaining where a yes or no answer was demanded. 

“As a document examiner, we analyse both the banana and the apple and do a comparative chart of what we found,” the EFCC witness stated in an illustration later used against his testimony.

Mr Burkaa probed if it was also correct that the naked eye would examine a document before forensic procedures.

To this, the witness responded that some documents can be examined with the naked eye while others need forensic evaluation to determine their genuineness or otherwise.

“If from examination with naked eyes and you find that the documents are dissimilar, I will proceed to use equipment to determine whether they are similar,” the witness explained.

But Mr Mairiga’s response appeared to upset Mr Burkaa. He insisted on an explicit yes or no answer and pointed out that an explanation should come after the yes or no response.

Mr Emefiele’s lawyer asked that “if from examination with naked eyes, and you see the front page of two dissimilar docs,” would he still use forensic equipment to check the other document pages to determine their dissimilarities or whatnot.

Mr Burkaa used the illustration of an apple and a banana, querying whether the witness would still need equipment to determine whether the contents of the two fruits were similar or dissimilar.

The witness appeared flustered and kept mum. His silence triggered Mr Emefiele’s lawyer to accuse him of misleading the court.

“We formally apply that this court should take note of the demeanour of this witness,” said the defence lawyer. 

“His demeanour for deliberately refusing to answer simple, straightforward questions,” said Mr Burkaa, was intended to “mislead the court in this trial.”

But Rotimi Oyedepo, the EFCC witness, objected, arguing that the witness was “not under any obligation to answer questions in a way that the defendant wants.”

“I urge my lord that this witness should be protected,” Mr Oyedepo prayed.

Justice Hamza Muazu adjourned the matter until March 11 for further hearing.