The trial of Olu Agunloye, former Minister of Power and Steel, in the alleged $6 billion Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project fraud case continued on Tuesday at the Federal High Court in Apo, Abuja, with a prosecution witness stating that the Federal Executive Council under Olusegun Obasanjo, a former President, specifically ordered the withdrawal of the contract award memo, not a modification of the Federal Government’s equity stake in the project.
Testifying before Jude Onwuegbuzie (Justice), the third prosecution witness, Umar Hussein Babangida, an operative of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, told the court that contrary to suggestions by the defence, the FEC did not direct the former minister to reduce the Federal Government’s equity participation in the project to 10 per cent.
Instead, he said, the Council’s decision was for the withdrawal of the award memo entirely.
The witness clarified while responding to questions from Adeola Adedipe, defence counsel.
During proceedings, the defence drew attention to a legal opinion referenced as “Exhibit EFCC 3s,” purportedly written by former Attorney General of the Federation, Michael Aondoakaa, advising the Federal Government on reviving the contract award to Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited due to its legal implications.
Read also: EFCC tells court Obasanjo ordered N11bn top-up for Mambilla hydropower project
Babangida dismissed the document as merely the personal opinion of a former Attorney General.
He similarly downplayed another legal opinion by Abubakar Malami, former Attorney General of the Federation, dated May 20, 2016, and addressed to then President Muhammadu Buhari, which reportedly supported Aondoakaa’s position on the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.
Efforts by the defence to question the witness on whether he was aware of the terms of settlement allegedly entered into in 2012 concerning the contract award to Sunrise Power Transmission Ltd were halted after an objection by Abba Mohammed, prosecuting counsel.
The court upheld the objection and overruled the line of questioning.
Further attempts by the defence to probe the witness on the legal framework governing privatisation in the power sector, including whether any law mandates federal agencies to obtain FEC approval before awarding contracts, also met resistance.
The prosecution objected, arguing that the question was hypothetical and speculative, and therefore inadmissible.
Citing Section 128 of the Evidence Act, Mohammed contended that the investigative report before the court did not reference any specific law and that the witness should not be compelled to interpret legal provisions.
The presiding judge sustained the objection.
The case was subsequently adjourned to Wednesday, February 18, 2026, for continuation of the trial.
