The long-running controversy surrounding the $6 billion Mambilla Hydropower Project took a dramatic turn on Thursday as explosive new testimony revealed that former President Olusegun Obasanjo had already approved Sunrise Power for final contract negotiations before Chief Olu Agunloye became Minister of Power.
The revelation, made under intense cross-examination of the EFCC’s lead investigator, Assistant Commissioner of Police Umar Babangida (PW3), added a new twist to a case that has gripped the nation for months.
Documents tendered in court show that Obasanjo had approved that Sunrise Power and Tafag & Co., out of seven competing firms, be invited for final negotiations under then Minister of Power, Dr Olusegun Agagu.
By the time the negotiations were concluded, Agagau had been replaced by Chief Agunloye—meaning the process was already in motion before the defendant assumed office.
Evidence presented also showed that Sunrise emerged the preferred bidder due to its superior technical competence, stronger tender, and its proposal for a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model, unlike Agagu’s preferred Build-Operate-Own (BOO) structure.
The court was further shown a letter dated 7 April 2003 in which Agunloye wrote to President Obasanjo outlining four reasons Sunrise was recommended for the multibillion-dollar project:
The Nigeria–China MOU signed on 3 July 2002 under Agagu, during Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s official visit to China.
The involvement of Chinese government-backed institutions to finance and secure the project.
Sunrise’s acceptance of the Federal Government’s position that Nigeria’s equity stake should not exceed 25%, reversing Agagu’s proposed 35%.
PW3 acknowledged that each of these four pillars was accurate based on documents reviewed during the investigation.
The heated moment of the day came when the defence asked PW3 which of the four bases emerged only after Agunloye took over. PW3 replied that he could not recall when Chinese government involvement began.
As PW3 began reading the 2002 Nigeria–China MOU, the prosecution quickly objected—leading to a dramatic courtroom exchange.
Irritated, defence counsel snapped at the senior prosecution lawyer:
“Sit down. Why are you trying to substitute the witness statement?”
The remark drew immediate condemnation from both the prosecution and the judge, who called it “unpalatable.” The defence lawyer promptly apologised to the court and to opposing counsel.
When calm returned, PW3 read the relevant portion of the MOU but insisted it referred only to financing from China EximBank. The defence countered that China EximBank is an agency of the Chinese Government—akin to Nigeria’s Central Bank.
PW3 eventually conceded the point, strengthening the defence’s argument that the Chinese government’s role predated Agunloye’s tenure.
With tensions high, the judge halted further cross-examination and adjourned the case to 18 December 2025, with continuation scheduled for 19 and 21 January 2026.
The revelations from PW3’s fourth day under cross-examination could prove pivotal in reshaping public perception and the legal trajectory of one of Nigeria’s most contentious infrastructure disputes.
