Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The trial of former Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye, over the alleged fraudulent award of the $6 billion Mambilla Power Project contract to Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited continued on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, with the fifth prosecution witness offering critical clarifications on the certification of the extract of the Federal Executive Council meeting minutes of May 21, 2003. The witness, Iliya John Iyakwari, an assistant director of Legal in the Federal Ministry of Justice currently serving as an assistant legal adviser in the Federal Ministry of Power, was cross-examined before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Apo, Abuja.
Agunloye is facing prosecution on an amended seven-count charge bordering on official corruption and the fraudulent award of the Mambilla Power Project contract valued at $6 billion to Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has been leading the case against the former minister, who served under former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, defence counsel, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, cross-examined Iyakwari on the timeline and circumstances surrounding the certification of the extract of the FEC meeting minutes. The witness explained that the EFCC’s formal request for certified extracts of the minutes of the FEC meeting of May 21, 2003, was received by his office in July 2023. However, the actual certification of the document did not take place until January 2024.
Iyakwari detailed the sequence of events that led to the delay in certification. He stated that upon receipt of the request letter from the User Department, the Legal Department prepared a forwarding memo to the EFCC dated July 27, 2023. The copy of the extract that was first sent to the anti‑graft agency was not certified, which forced the EFCC to return the document for proper certification. “It was after it was received by EFCC in July 2023, that they realized that the extract was not certified. So, in January 2024, a staff of the EFCC, named Babangida, brought back the document to my legal adviser and reminded my director that it was not certified,” Iyakwari testified. He further explained that his director then gave him the document to go and certify, which he did on January 26, 2024.
The witness acknowledged that the date of certification, January 26, 2024, is different from the date of the original forwarding letter, June 27, 2023. He admitted that during the process of certification, he mistakenly stamped the original forwarding letter of June 27, 2023, as well. After stamping, he returned the document to his director, who he believed handed it over to Babangida.
When defence counsel suggested that the witness’s earlier testimony appeared contradictory regarding the timing of the certification, prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, SAN, objected. Mohammed argued that the witness never claimed that the certification was done in 2023, only that the activities, including the receipt of the request and the initial forwarding, occurred in June 2023. He insisted that the record of the court, particularly line 16 of the relevant deposition, reflects that the witness summarized the timeline accurately. “My lord, I object to this particular question, anchored on Exhibit PW5A which was just tendered in court. What I see in our record and what I believe is reflected in the records of the court is that in his explanation, he summarized that all these activities were done in June 2023, he never said the certification was done in 2023,” Mohammed submitted. He further grounded his objection on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which he argued is superior to the Evidence Act.
Defence counsel then asked Iyakwari whether the document that Babangida, an EFCC staff member, tendered in court during his own testimony was a different extract of the FEC meeting from the one the witness certified. The prosecution again raised an objection. Mohammed argued that the witness, having followed court procedure and having been excluded from the courtroom during Babangida’s testimony, could not be cross-examined on a document not tendered through him. He cited the case of Buhari vs INEC & Others (2008) to support his argument that a witness cannot be questioned on the evidence of another witness who testified in his absence.
Justice Onwuegbuzie listened to the submissions from both counsel and, after noting the objections, adjourned the matter until June 18 and July 2, 2026, for continuation of trial.
The Mambilla Power Project fraud case is one of the most high‑profile corruption trials in Nigeria’s recent history. The project, which was conceived as one of the largest hydroelectric power schemes in Africa, has been embroiled in controversy for years. Agunloye has maintained his innocence, while the EFCC has presented a series of witnesses to establish that the contract was awarded without due process and that the former minister allegedly received gratification. The case has drawn public attention not only because of the sheer magnitude of the sum involved but also because of the strategic importance of the Mambilla project to Nigeria’s energy sufficiency.
The clarification provided by Iyakwari on the certification of the FEC minutes is seen by legal observers as a critical piece of evidence that may influence the court’s assessment of the authenticity and admissibility of key documents presented by the prosecution. The discrepancy between the dates of the forwarding letter and the actual certification could become a point of contention, with the defence likely to argue that proper procedures were not followed, potentially affecting the weight of the evidence.
As the trial continues, the prosecution is expected to call more witnesses to further establish its case. The defence, led by Adeola Adedipe, SAN, has indicated that it will challenge the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence and the validity of the charges against the former minister. Justice Onwuegbuzie has set a pace for the trial, with multiple adjourned dates in June and July to ensure an expeditious hearing.
For the Nigerian public, which has waited years for closure on the Mambilla project saga, the trial represents a test of the country’s commitment to fighting high‑level corruption. The testimony of the fifth prosecution witness, though focused on a procedural detail, underscores the complexity of the forensic scrutiny that such cases demand. The court will reconvene on June 18, 2026, to continue hearing evidence in a trial that has become a landmark in the nation’s anti‑corruption jurisprudence.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com ✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments