Fresh twists emerged on Monday at the resumed trial of former Minister of Power, Dr. Olu Agunloye, as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) star witness, Mr. Umar Babangida, admitted under cross-examination that he concluded a key contractual letter was forged without comparing it to any authentic version or conducting any forensic analysis.
Babangida, an Assistant Commissioner of Police and a Chief Investigation Officer who has served in the EFCC for over a decade, appeared as Prosecution Witness 3 (PW3) before the Federal High Court in Abuja for the continuation of his cross-examination in the long-running Mambilla power project trial.
The defence counsel, Mr. Adeola Adedipe (SAN), continued his methodical dissection of earlier testimonies provided by the EFCC’s star witness.
The interrogation revisited several contradictions from Babangida’s earlier appearance in October, during which he admitted that there was no presidential directive allegedly violated by Dr. Agunloye—contrary to the prosecution’s initial narrative. He also conceded that his earlier claim that Agunloye and Sunrise Power’s chief executive, Mr. Leno Adesanya, were close associates was inaccurate. In fact, Babangida confirmed that the former minister had never met Adesanya before awarding the Mambilla BOT contract in 2003, and only saw him twice thereafter—in 2014 and again in 2018—many years after leaving office.
These acknowledgments cast fresh doubt on the prosecution’s claim that their supposed close relationship influenced the contract award.
But the most dramatic moment came when the defence turned to the EFCC’s charge that Agunloye forged the May 22, 2003 letter awarding the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) contract to Sunrise Power.
When asked how he concluded that the letter was forged, PW3 responded that he formed his opinion merely by “going through it.”
He admitted that: He did not compare the letter with any known genuine version;
No forensic tests, technical assessments, or expert analyses were performed;
The conclusion of forgery was based purely on his personal impression.
The revelation sent murmurs across the courtroom, raising concerns about the investigative rigor behind one of the central allegations.
Babangida also testified that the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting of May 21, 2003 — which the prosecution claims Agunloye circumvented — was attended by President Olusegun Obasanjo, Vice President Atiku Abubakar, and 40 ministers.
Since he was not present at the meeting, he said he interviewed one minister and relied on a recent letter written by former President Obasanjo to the current Attorney General of the Federation. Yet, he conceded that:
He did not file any formal report of the ministerial interview;
He only recognized Obasanjo’s letter when shown in court as an exhibit.
This raised further questions about the depth and transparency of the EFCC’s investigative process.
At that point, the presiding judge halted the proceedings and adjourned further cross-examination.
The courtroom developments follow the EFCC’s earlier decision in October to withdraw accusations that Agunloye awarded a “$6 billion contract without appropriation or cash backing.”
The withdrawal came after legal clarifications that BOT contracts do not require budgetary cash backing or prior financial appropriation, undermining a central premise of the prosecution’s narrative.
Despite this retreat, the Commission re-arraigned the former minister for the third time.
With the prosecution’s key witness now facing credibility challenges, the next hearing scheduled for December 1, 2025, is expected to further shape the trajectory of one of Nigeria’s most politically charged legal battles.
As the Mambilla case enters another decisive phase, observers say the unfolding contradictions suggest that the prosecution’s case may be wobbling — while the defence is poised to press its advantage.