An investigator with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Umar Hussein Babangida, has told a Federal High Court in Abuja that the extracts from the Federal Executive Council, FEC meeting of May 21, 2003, tendered against a former Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye were genuine, contrary to defendant’s claim that they were altered.
Babangida, the third prosecution witness, PW3, disclosed this during the ongoing trial of Agunloye.
The former minister is facing prosecution by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC on an amended seven-count charge, bordering on official corruption and fraudulent award of the Mambilla Power Project contract to the tune of $6billion (Six Billion United States Dollars) to Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited.
The witness, an investigator with the EFCC, while being cross-examined by defence counsel, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, the witness told the court that EFCC wrote to both the Federal Ministry of Power and the Office of the Secretary General of the Federation, OSGF, requesting the extracts of the FEC Meeting of May 21, 2003, and both in response provided the Commission with extracts that were exact in content in contrast with the defendant’s claim in his extrajudicial statement to EFCC that the extracts were altered.
“I recalled that the defendant claimed that the extract was altered, that claim is not correct. We compared the response from the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and that of the Ministry of Power and discovered that the content of the minutes of the meeting of the Federal Executive Council was the same,” he said.
Asked if he investigated the claim, he answered in the positive.
When shown Exhibits EFCC 3D and EFCC 3K, the witness identified the former as the response to EFCC’s request from the OSGF and the latter as the response from the Federal Ministry of Power.
Reading the content of Page 8 of EFCC 3K, he said: “I can see the title serial number 14: ‘Construction of 3,960megawatts Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, on built, operate and transfer basis. I can see paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 and an inscription, ‘Executive Council conclusions’,” adding that there was a Certified True Copy stamp of the Federal Ministry of Power signed by one Iliya Iykakhan, Assistant Director, Legal and dated January 26, 2024 and the page was not numbered.
Further into the proceedings, the need for the witness to make clarifications on the two exhibits arose, with the defence counsel insisting that the witness cannot make clarifications on the documents since he was not their maker.
According to him, such clarifications can only be given by the Federal Ministry of Power and OSGF, while the prosecution counsel urged the court, in the interest of justice, to allow the witness clarify any ambiguity or contradictions in the documents.
The prosecution counsel pleaded with court to allow the witness to explain, going by the provisions of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, which provides for fair hearing and the provision of the Evidence Act, vesting the court with the power to allow the witness make proper explanation.
He added:” My lord, we rely on the decision of this court where the PW3 was directed to answer questions on documents tendered which were generated in the cause of the investigation even though he is not the maker.”
After listening to both parties, Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie adjourned the matter till March 16, 2026 for ruling on whether the witness can give clarifications on the documents or not.