Connect with us

Opinion

Mambilla: Parallel trials in Nigeria and France as court amends charges against Agunloye

Published

on

–corruption laden processes surrounding Mambilla in the face of inadequate electricity impact negatively on the economy, security and the social well-being of the people.

By Engr Felix Kajawah. 23 January 2025

In a rare moment in the morning of Thursday, 23rd January 2025, two Mambilla trials proceeded simultaneously at the Arbitration court in Paris, France, and in Abuja, Nigeria. The proceedings in France are the final stages of the processes at the International Arbitration Court, where Nigeria is defending itself in the case brought against it by Messrs. Sunrise Power and Transmission Company. This company, Sunrise, is seeking redress at the International Chambers of Commerce in France for arbitrary awards and breaches of Agreements by the Government of Nigeria.

The Arbitration was triggered by the award of the Mambilla hydroelectric power project in 2007 by Barrister Babatunde Raji Fashola who was the Minister of Power from 2015 to 2019 under the President Buhari regime. At the Arbitration, Messrs Sunrise is demanding whooping damages of $2.3 billion from the Federal Government while FGN is pleading massive corruption in the operations and activities in Nigeria leading to the awards of contracts and Agreements on the Mambilla project from 2003 to 2022 excepting the case of the 2017 activities of Minister Fashola. Incidentally, both Mr. Fashola and former President Buhari are currently in court in France as at this day to defend their actions on the Mambilla project. Other Ministers and Officials of the Nigerian Government are also in France.

Happening concurrently also, on 23 January 2025, the FCT High Court in Abuja which has been trying Dr Agunloye on criminal charges on Mambilla project since January 2024 was sitting under Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie. It was Dr Agunloye, former Minister of Power from 2002 to 2003 under President Olusegun Obasanjo, who awarded the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power project in 2003 as a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) contract to Sunrise at no cost to the Government of Nigeria. For this contract, FGN did not pay anything and has not paid any amount to Sunrise up till date. But in a rather strange development, EFCC dragged the former Minister to court 20 years after leaving office and charged him for awarding the BOT contract “without any budgetary provision, approval and cash backing and for corruptly receiving three bribes totalling N5,200,000 (five million and two hundred Naira) in 2019 through bank transfers from Sunrise Power and Adesanya for the award of the Mambilla BOT contract in 2003.”

The trial against Agunloye proceeded in spite of Agunloye’s insistence that he was being unjustly framed for a conviction to be used as an accessory by the Government of Nigeria at the Arbitration court in France with an intention to convince the Arbitration panel that the claims of Sunrise were based on corruption as pleaded by FGN under President Buhari. In this way, FGN was hoping to evade any liabilities or penalties at the Arbitration court according to Dr. Agunloye.

In the recent past, Dr. Agunloye publicly joined issues with former president Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, who is also at the Arbitration court in France to testify that he did not know that the 2003 BOT contract was awarded under his presidency until 20 years after. Agunloye strongly disagrees with this and insists that there is abundant evidence that Chief Obasanjo knew about the 2003 BOT contract award and acted on the award in 2005 and 2006. Former Minister Agunloye also pointed to the investigation carried out by President Yar’Adua in 2007 which confirmed that the BOT contract of 2003 was legitimately awarded.

The Agunloye trial in Nigeria continued at full swing until mid-June 2024, when the EFCC presented its first witness to testify about the “2019 bribes for a 2003 BOT contract”. The prosecution witness failed to show that the three payments transferred to Dr Agunloye’s bank account in August (N3,600,000), October (N500,000), and November (N1,100,000) in Year 2019 were payments from “Sunrise Company and Adesanya” as claimed by EFCC. It was at this stage that EFCC sought to modify the three charges so that they can insert the phrase “through Mr Jide Sotirin” after “payment from Sunrise Company and Adesanya” in each of the three charges. After the lawyers on both sides settled on the procedure of amending the charges which were demolished by cross examination, the judge appointed the eventful date of 23 January 2023 to give his ruling. This is how two parallel trials got on track on the same day, one at the Arbitration Court in Paris, the other at the court of Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie in Abuja. The judge read his ruling very briskly and concluded that the charges could be amended especially when they were “imperfect and erroneous”. He granted the application of EFCC to amend them as allowed by law.

The Nigerian court adjourned till 3 February 2025 to re-arraign the former Minister of Power, Dr. Agunloye on the freshly amended charges and thereafter proceed to cross examine the Witness of EFCC, who testified in June 2024, after which the prosecutor started the charge amendment process to cover up EFCC’s lapses. The trials of the vexing Mambilla project in Abuja and Paris may run concurrently once again on the 3rd of February 2025 if the hearing session by the Arbitration Panel has not been concluded.

As the corruption laden processes continue to delay the construction of the 3,050 megawatts Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, the pains and punishments from inadequate supply of electricity bite harder on the economy, security and industrial development of Nigeria and the social well-being of its 240 million people.

Engr. Felix Kajawah. Abuja. 23 January 2025

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Charges and Challenges before Aiyedatiwa and the Sunshine State

Published

on

Lucky Aiyedatiwa taking the oath of office

By Dr Olu Agunloye

On this day, 24th of February 2025, the Inauguration Day of His Excellency, Dr. Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa as the 7th Governor of Ondo State, we remember the erstwhile Governor, Barrister Oluwarotimi Odunayo Akeredolu, CON., SAN, the one fondly called Aketi. It was he who said: “Ondo State people are indomitable people. Nobody can dominate us. Our limitations have been imposed by the perverse federalism that we are running.” That statement was made as a sitting Governor when he was putting into place the establishment of the Amotekun special security outfit. He was indeed a bold, courageous and outspoken man. We are told that his father, Rev J. O. Akeredolu, was also an outspoken and courageous man. As a matter of fact, there are, indeed, a lot of courageous and outspoken men and women in our dear Ondo State, the Sunshine State.

We remember that our state had also been ruled by other courageous men, namely, Chief Adekunle Ajasin, former school teacher; Chief Adebayo Adefarati, another former school teacher; Dr. Olusegun Agagu, a former university teacher and a Petroleum Geologist and by Dr. Segun Mimiko, a medical doctor. Targeting Aketi on the day we celebrate Ondo State’s inauguration of a new Government is applicable. It is about using him symbolically as a point of contact to bring the memories and performances of previous former Ondo State Governors to the attention of the new governor, Dr. Lucky Aiyedatiwa and the new drivers of Ondo State. It is to urge them to eschew aggrandisement of public offices, perquisites of office, temptations of personal enrichment and tendencies for injustice which cause hydra-headed corruption. Instead, they should focus on and embrace the critical issues of actualising real sustainable development for our dear state to open the doors for wealth creation, job creation, youth empowerment, women emancipation and economic growth. This is because Ondo State needs to take its proper position as a model state not only in the subregion but in the federation.

We note, rather sadly, that Ondo is a rich state and yet a poor state. The economic indices and numbers do not add up, so to say. More so, the welfare, state of wellbeing, state of hippieness, state of food security or physical security of the people are not good, and no economic indices or statistics can be used to cover these up. Take for instance, Ondo State economy is the sixth largest in Nigeria; the State’s income from crude oil from 14 oil fields in the State contributes 12% of the country’s crude oil production and reserves, with about 3.5 billion barrels of crude oil reserves; the State produces over 75,000 tons of cocoa annually, has 156 million metric tons of bitumen reserve, has vast asphalt production, and extensive coastline activities as well as Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) of over N40 billion per annum, all of which are substantial but these do not lead to improved wellbeing, high employment rates or better health care for the ordinary people of Ondo State. The State’s annual Budget ranks 10th highest in Nigeria, but the State is still characterised with low unemployment rate, (17.1%), high poverty rate (12.5%, second highest in the SW, after Ekiti’s 28%) and concomitantly high crime rate (2.8%, second highest in the SW, after Lagos’ 37.9%, the highest in Nigeria).

Certainly, Governor Aiyedatiwa must take all the advantages to unlock the vast socio-economic potentials in the State and its people. The State needs a breakthrough in turning its human talents into creative industry, its mineral resources into wealth, tourist attractions into economic development and turning the coastline into a deep-sea port and for the State to become a maritime hub in West Africa facilitating sea trade, and harnessing blue economy including fishing industries, boatbuilding industry and tourism. Governor Aiyedatiwa must harness the high traffic volumes which pass the gateway state to feed Ekiti, Kogi, Edo, Delta, Ogun, Osun and Lagos States and those which lead to the Eastern and Northern parts of Nigeria to yield revenue and create wealth. It is time to create Agricultural Farm Settlement Centres to harvest economy with cocoa, cotton, tobacco, rubber, timber, palm oil and kernels and other cash crops to create jobs and grow wealth. The State needs to create a direct coastal route to Lagos, the economic hub of Nigeria and of West Africa by building a modern highway to connect Lagos to Igbokoda or Agbabu or other to tap into the national blue economy, enhance connectivity advantages and benefits as well as boost tourism. The Aiyedatiwa Government should create industrial and technology zones, digital villages across the State, and leverage on Olokola Free Trade Zone to create large scale trade and provide energy sufficiency. Above all, it is time to build the Southern corner of Ondo State into the incubation centre of the State to boost statewide productivity and sustainable development and economic growth of the entire State.

Dr Olu Agunloye, Erusu-Akoko. Ondo State. former Minister of Defence, former Minister of Power and Steel,
National Secretary, Social Democratic Party (SDP)

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Senate Rules and Natasha’s Outburst: Facts of the Matter

Published

on

Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan

By
OLA AWONIYI

A drama on the floor of the Senate on Thursday, 20th February 2025, attracted varied commentaries on the social, print and broadcast media. The drama was both unnecessary and avoidable as it merely distracted from the business of the day in the Chamber.

Legislative activities, whether in the hallowed Chamber or in committee rooms, are guided by the Senate Rules. This may lead a first-timer at the public gallery to wonder if lawmakers do anything without reference to their Standing Rules. Every time they get the recognition of the Presiding Officer to contribute to a discussion in the chamber, Senators are guided by the Standing Rules in what to say. This is well known to the lawmakers. The Rules also stipulate sanctions for members whose actions or conducts deviate from the Rules. The Chamber is called hallowed because it is known for Order and decorum.

The drama of that Thursday started right at the commencement of the day’s business when the Senate Chief Whip, Senator Mohammed Tahir Monguno, raised a Point of Order to report Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, to the Senate on her disregard for the Senate Rules. Order 6, which Senator Monguno cited, stipulates that “the President of the Senate shall allocate a seat to each senator,” while section 6(2) states that senators may only speak from the seat allocated to them by the Presiding Officer. It also provides that the President of the Senate may change the allocation from time to time as the need arises.

Senator Monguno, relying on the rules stated above, submitted that “It is at the discretion of the Senate president, as circumstances may warrant, to change the seat of any Senator, based on circumstances that may crop up in the course of proceedings in the Senate.

“In the course of proceedings, two Senators – Ned Nwoko of the PDP and Senator Francis Ezenwa of the Labour Party, decamped to the APC, thereby necessitating their movement from the other side (Minority) to this side (Majority). In the exercise of the powers conferred on the President of the Senate, pursuant to Order 6(2), the President of the Senate decided to rearrange things, giving a directive to the Chief Whip to exercise that function. And pursuant to that directive, seats were reallocated and I want to report that Senator Natasha, having been given another seat, refused to vacate her former seat in flagrant violation of our Rules.”

Senator Monguno consequently referred the Senate to the Standing Rules, which mandate Senator Natasha to comply with the directive of the Presiding Officer to move to her new seat, failure of which she would be denied recognition to make any contribution during plenary.

After the Chief Whip landed on his Point of Order, the Senate President hit the gavel and pronounced that the Point of Order was sustained. This means that Senator Natasha could not speak on the floor of the Senate except from the new seat allocated to her.

Upon the Senate President’s ruling on the Point of Order, Senator Natasha sprang to her feet, waving the same document containing the Standing Rules and shouting, “Point of Order.” However, the Senate President reminded her that she could not speak outside her allocated seat.

Senator Natasha ignored the Presiding Officer’s ruling and continued to scream, citing Order 10, which has to do with the breach of privileges of a Senator.

Because she continued to scream, the Senate President ordered the Seargent-At-Arms to “take her out of the Chamber.” The Seargent-At-Arms moved swiftly in her direction but hesitated to act, probably expecting the Senator to calm down and comply with the Senate President’s ruling and avert her evacuation from the Chamber. However, the Senate President kept a dignified silence. He did not repeat his directive, obviously to avert aggravating the drama.

By this time, some Senators had walked over to pet Senator Natasha, but she rebuffed their intervention and continued uttering discourteous statements.

Against the backdrop of the unfortunate drama, commentators have raised some questions: Why should the Senate President reallocate Senators’ seats? Why can’t Senators speak from any seat in the Chamber? Why wasn’t Senator Natasha allowed to explain her objection to her seat being changed?

A reference was also made to an incident on 17th October 2018 when Senator Godswill Akpabio protested being denied recognition to speak from a seat other than the one allocated to him. Are the two incidents similar?

The answers to the questions above are provided by the Senate Rules and Procedure. The Standing Orders book guides the Senate’s legislative business.

Pertinent to this issue, are clauses that empower the Senate President to allocate and reallocate seats as the need arises. Seats change in the Chamber from time to time without senators protesting because they know that occasions demand it and their rules permit it.

Senators do not sit just anywhere at the plenary. This is to ensure Order and decorum in the hallowed Chamber. The practice in the Parliament all over the democratic world is that members sit with their party colleagues. Ruling party or majority party members have a section in the Chamber and those of the opposition or minority parties another section.

A movement of members across party lines through defection will automatically necessitate an adjustment of the sitting arrangement.

Therefore, as explained by the Senate Chief Whip on Thursday, the change of Senator Natasha’s seat was made necessary by the defection on Wednesday 5th February 2025 of Senator Ned Nwoko of the Delta North Senatorial District from the PDP to the APC and Senator Ezenwa Francis Onyewuchi of the Imo East Senatorial District from Labour Party to APC as well.

Therefore, Senator Natasha was not the only Senator affected by the changes in the sitting arrangement. The difference with the others was that they graciously accepted the change, obviously seeing no point in making a drama out of an innocuous, routine development in the hallowed Chamber.

Was Senator Natasha denied her right to speak in the Chamber that day? Nope. She was not recognised to speak because she was not on her seat, just like Senator Akpabio was not allowed to speak from Senator Ali Ndume’s seat in 2018, even though Akpabio moved over to another seat that day because the microphone on his allocated seat had malfunctioned.

The then Senate President, Bukola Saraki was firm in his ruling that Akpabio would only be allowed to speak from an alternative seat (with a functioning microphone), which the Clerk of the Senate already provided him, but which he had rejected. Akpabio protested, but he eventually accepted the reallocated seat and apologized to the Senate.

That shows that Akpabio did not invent the rule that prevented Senator Natasha from speaking outside the seat allocated to her. He also did not apply the Rules to embarrass or victimize her.

Granting her recognition to speak after a Point of Order was raised by the Chief Whip and sustained would have been inconsistent with the Senate Rule. All that Senator Natasha was asked to do was to move to her seat to state her case of the alleged breach of her privilege.

It is noteworthy that neither of her two Senator colleagues from Kogi State agreed with Natasha on this issue. Senator Jibrin Isah, representing Kogi East, apologized on behalf of the Kogi Senate Caucus to the Senate while Senator Sunday Karimi, representing Kogi West, asked Natasha to apologise to the Senate for her conduct.

To demonstrate that he had no personal issues with her, the Senate President eventually offered an apology to the Senate on her behalf for holding up the day’s proceeding, citing his own 2018 experience of how a firm application of the Rules can hurt some egos and be misinterpreted.

***Ola Awoniyi writes from Abuja

Continue Reading

Opinion

Akpabio VS. Natasha: Political Sexism or is the Senate a Cult?

Published

on

I have worked in the National Assembly though in the Green Chambers as an aide earlier on. I have seen power games played in their rawest form. so I understand how the game is played. The National Assembly is not a debating society where lawmakers sip tea and exchange polite arguments.

It is a political war zone not for the weak but where lawmakers have been known to throw insults like free akara and rip agbadas like WWE wrestlers to assert dominance.

What happened to Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was not an accident. It was a deliberate act of political suppression disguised as Senate procedure.

If we are being honest, Nigerian lawmakers hardly follow procedure. They shout over each other, climb chairs, and in extreme cases, physical blows settle matters faster than parliamentary rules.

In this same Senate, a senator once jumped over tables to grab the mace like an action film hero. Nobody declared him “out of order.”

So, who are we fooling?

Natasha’s real offense was not breaking Senate rules; it was speaking with the kind of confidence the system does not tolerate from women. She did not lower her voice. She did not wait for permission. She did not beg.

For that, she had to be reminded of her place.

Akpabio, who now plays the role of Senate Headmaster, was once a student of political hooliganism himself.

When he opposed Bukola Saraki’s leadership in the Senate, he disrupted, challenged, and broke every so-called “rule” to assert his position.

Nobody told him he was “out of order” when he threw his weight around. Nobody switched off his microphone when he flexed his influence.

Now, the same Akpabio wants to lecture Natasha on “respect”? Somebody help me understand this selective amnesia.

The message is clear:

Men in power can be loud and aggressive, but women must be quiet and submissive.

Women in power must not challenge the men, otherwise it’s labelled “disrespectful.”

Women in the Senate must clap, nod, and play backup singers while men take the lead.

The Senate allows men to play rough, but expects women to behave like obedient kitchen wives.

Natasha refused to follow that script, and Akpabio’s Senate is punishing her for it.

Natasha’s seat change was not a coincidence; it is a message and a Political Attack.

For those who don’t understand how the National Assembly politics works, let me educate you.

Where you sit in plenary matters. The further back you are, the less visible and important you become. Cameras don’t pick you up easily. If you raise your hand, it’s like you don’t exist.

The presiding officer conveniently “doesn’t see your hand.”The system gradually silences you without needing to say a word.

First, they moved Natasha’s seat to the far end, near the exit. As if waiting for her to walk herself out.

She sat there. Still, that was not enough for them.

Now, they have moved her seat AGAIN!

They have pushed her to the far end corner of the plenary, the burial ground for lawmakers who don’t talk, don’t think, don’t contribute!

That place is for the benchwarmers, the ones who come, sign attendance, eat money, shout “Aye!” and “Nay!” like programmed robots, then vanish!

Natasha is NOT a benchwarmer. She is not a political errand girl. So why are they trying to bury her voice?

If the Senate follows rules, why was Natasha not informed before her seat was changed?

She woke up one morning, came to plenary, and suddenly… bam! She was told to move. Why?

Why?

Since when did they start moving senators around like chess pieces?

Since when did they start treating elected lawmakers like secondary school students being punished for noise-making?

This is deliberate sidelining. She has been excluded from international engagements, forced to fund her own travels while her male colleagues enjoy first-class treatment.

When she dares to raise her voice?
Her microphone is killed like an unwanted radio station.

Is this a democracy or a boys’ cult?

I have worked with lawmakers. I have sat behind the scenes. I have seen how the game is played.

Nigerian politics is not about truth or debate. It is about who can intimidate who into silence.

Akpabio’s “you are out of order” was not just a procedural statement, it was an attempt to put Natasha in her place.

To remind her that no matter how educated, outspoken, or intelligent she is, she is still a woman in a system built by men, designed for men.

That is the strategy. That is the game.

What Happened to Immunity? Or Does It Only Work for Men?

Senators have immunity for whatever they say on the floor of the House.

That is the law. That is the rule.

Yet, somehow, Akpabio treated Natasha like an errant schoolgirl, as if she was breaking some sacred commandment.

The real question is:

Would Akpabio have done the same if Natasha were a man?

Would he have cut off the microphone of a male senator mid-sentence in that same manner?

We know the answer.

Natasha represents something Nigerian politics is not used to; an outspoken woman who does not wait to be given permission to speak.

The system is playing a dirty game: if we can’t stop her from speaking, they will make sure nobody sees her.

That is why this gbas gbos was different.

This is not about rules.
This is about power.

That is the real game.

The Nigerian Senate has never been a quiet place. It has never been a place where emotions are checked at the door.

It is a battleground where policies, positions, and political futures are fought for.

So why is it that the same Senate that tolerates male aggression cannot handle female confidence?

The Nigerian Senate has always been a boys’ club. Women in the Red Chambers are expected to sit quietly, nod obediently, and support the men.

Natasha refused. And now, they are making her pay for it.

Senator Natasha did what every senator is elected to do. She had every right to push back.

The job of a senator is to speak, debate and challenge issues, not to sit down and watch like a guest at a wedding reception.

If that is now considered “out of order,” then perhaps the entire system needs to be reset.

If a lawmaker cannot express themselves, then what exactly are they doing in the Senate? What is their purpose?

Akpabio, as Senate President, has a duty to manage the house.

Leadership is not about silencing people; it is about managing power, balancing authority with fairness without being threatened by it.

Switching off a senator’s microphone is not leadership; it is dictatorship in disguise.

This was not about rules, this was about maintaining control.

What happened in the Red Chambers was bigger than one argument. It was a reminder that power in Nigeria is still a carefully guarded boys’ club.

A place where women are expected to be seen, not hear

This is not just about Natasha. It is about every woman in power who has been bullied into silence and deliberately made invisible in a room where she deserves to stand tall.

This is about a political culture that calls male assertiveness “leadership” but labels female boldness “disrespect.”

This is about a system that is comfortable with male chaos but afraid of female confidence.

The National Assembly is not a church. It is not a royal palace. It is a political arena. Senators should be allowed to speak, regardless of gender.

Call me ILUO-OGHENE but i remain ILUO DePOET and indeed, i have seen with my own eyes.👀

Oya, talk your talk, let’s hear your view.✍🏻

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 National Update