CBN director shares details of $600,000 bribe collected for Emefiele
A former Director of Information Technology at the Central Bank of Nigeria, Mr. John Ayoh, shed light on how he allegedly collected a $600,000 bribe intended as contract gratification for the former CBN governor, Mr. Godwin Emefiele.
Mr. Ayoh testified in court, under the guidance of the EFCC counsel, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), stating that he spent eight years at the apex bank. He mentioned receiving a letter from the agency related to two transactions he facilitated with Emefiele.
During his tenure as the Head of the Procurement and Support Services (PSS) Department, Ayoh mentioned that he received the first envelope containing $400,000 at his residence in Lekki. The second envelope, with $200,000, was handed to him at the Tinubu Head Office of the CBN.
Ayoh disclosed that he was responsible for receiving applications for contract awards and selecting successful bidders. The alleged transactions in question took place at his Lekki residence and the CBN’s Tinubu Head Office.
He said: “The man to deliver the second transaction came to our office in Lagos and I informed the governor but he said he did not want to see a third party that I should bring the envelope myself.
“I complied with the instruction and went to his office and delivered it. Mr John Adeola was the one I sent my address to and he came to my house. He is the governor’s assistant and the total money I received on his behalf was $400,000 and $200,000, respectively.”
The witness informed the court that the vendors who allegedly brought the envelopes with money were in charge of the implementation of Netapp Storage Architectural and Infrastructural Services.
While under cross-examination by the first defence counsel, Mr. Olalekan Ojo (SAN), he told the court that his schedule of duties did not include running errands for Emefiele but he directly worked under him.
Ayoh confirmed to the court that Emefiele was not a member of the PSS but a member of the Major Contract Tender Committee (MCTC).
He added that he had never facilitated in the commission of any crime.
Ojo asked if the witness wrote in his statement that he was forced to aid or abet the commission of accepting gratification.
READ ALSO: Dispatch Rider Testifies: How I handled cash deliveries for Emefiele
The witness said: “I do not remember the exact word that I used and I did not write in my statement that I opened the two envelopes on the two occasions to check the total sum of money.
“I wrote a statement and it implied that the money in the envelopes was given to me to influence the award of contract. I did not take part in the decision of the MCTC but I recommended that the award be given and I was not bribed.
“I was invited by the EFCC on February 17, I was not arrested but I returned home on administrative bail,” he said.
The witness told the court that he operated under duress, while he received the two envelopes from the contractors.
“On your honour, did you indicate in your statement that you were acting under duress while running errands for the first defendant,” the learned silk asked.
The prosecution, however, objected to the question and argued that the statement of the witness was not before the court.
The first defence counsel sought that the statement of the defendant be admitted into evidence.
Justice Rahman Oshodi, thereafter, admitted the statement of the witness (three pages) into evidence, following arguments and counter arguments of the counsel.
The Senior Advocate, reteirated that the witness showed to the court where it was written in his statement that he acted under duress.
The witness told the court that the instructions from Emefiele indicated that he bent rules.
The judge, thereafter, adjourned the case until May 3 for continuation of cross-examination.
Emefiele’s counsel also pleaded with the court to release the defendant to him on self-recognition because he had not met with his bail application.
The learned silk, however, prayed the court that the defendant would meet up before May 17.
There was no objection from the second defence counsel and the prosecution left the decision at the discretion of the court.
