The trial surrounding the controversial Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project took an unexpected twist on Tuesday when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) submitted two conflicting versions of Executive Council Conclusions (EC Conclusions) to the court, both claiming to reflect the minutes of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting of May 21, 2003.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye, faces a revised seven-count charge, including disobedience to presidential directives, gratification, and forgery before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Apo, Abuja.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The EFCC alleges that the FEC had ordered Agunloye to revoke the award of the Mambilla Power Project from Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited (SPTCL), but he ignored the directive. According to the agency, on May 22, 2003, Agunloye approved a contract with SPTCL for the construction of the 3,960 MW Mambilla hydroelectric power station, defying then-President Olusegun Obasanjo\u2019s instruction from the May 21 meeting\u2014a move said to contravene Section 123 of the Penal Code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wednesday\u2019s hearing, initially scheduled for 10:45 a.m., was delayed for nearly two hours as court staff searched for misplaced exhibits during ongoing renovations. Once proceedings resumed, defence counsel challenged EFCC witness Umar Babangida (PW3) on whether Agunloye had claimed that the EC Conclusions were altered. Babangida acknowledged Agunloye\u2019s statement but dismissed it, citing an unofficial and undisclosed investigation as his basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under cross-examination, Babangida admitted that EFCC had obtained EC Conclusions from both the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) and the Ministry of Power, presenting them as extracts of the same May 21, 2003 FEC meeting. The two documents, tendered as Exhibits 3D and 3K, displayed \u201cglaring differences,\u201d the defence noted, with substantial contradictions between the two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The defence lawyer told the court, \u201cIt is clear that the witness tendered two different documents as \u2018EC Conclusions.\u2019\u201d Prosecution lawyers sought to explain the discrepancy, leading to tense courtroom exchanges. The defence insisted that Babangida, not being the author of either document, could not clarify the differences, arguing that the makers themselves should be summoned if the prosecution wished to pursue the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After hearing arguments from both sides, the judge ruled that PW3 would not be allowed to explain the discrepancies, adjourning the case until Monday, March 16, 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The $6 billion Mambilla Hydroelectric Project has been mired in controversy for years, facing delays and allegations of corruption surrounding contract awards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wednesday\u2019s hearing, initially scheduled for 10:45 a.m., was delayed for nearly two hours as court staff searched for misplaced exhibits during ongoing renovations. Once proceedings resumed, defence counsel challenged EFCC witness Umar Babangida (PW3) on whether Agunloye had claimed that the EC Conclusions were altered. Babangida acknowledged Agunloye\u2019s statement but dismissed it, citing an unofficial and undisclosed investigation as his basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under cross-examination, Babangida admitted that EFCC had obtained EC Conclusions from both the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) and the Ministry of Power, presenting them as extracts of the same May 21, 2003 FEC meeting. The two documents, tendered as Exhibits 3D and 3K, displayed \u201cglaring differences,\u201d the defence noted, with substantial contradictions between the two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The defence lawyer told the court, \u201cIt is clear that the witness tendered two different documents as \u2018EC Conclusions.\u2019\u201d Prosecution lawyers sought to explain the discrepancy, leading to tense courtroom exchanges. The defence insisted that Babangida, not being the author of either document, could not clarify the differences, arguing that the makers themselves should be summoned if the prosecution wished to pursue the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After hearing arguments from both sides, the judge ruled that PW3 would not be allowed to explain the discrepancies, adjourning the case until Monday, March 16, 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The $6 billion Mambilla Hydroelectric Project has been mired in controversy for years, facing delays and allegations of corruption surrounding contract awards.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The trial surrounding the controversial Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project took an unexpected twist on Tuesday when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) submitted two conflicting versions of Executive Council Conclusions (EC Conclusions) to the court, both claiming to reflect the minutes of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting of May 21, 2003. Former Minister […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":48695,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-91111","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t