A dramatic moment unfolded on Wednesday in the ongoing Mambilla power project trial when the court was confronted with two different versions of documents said to be extracts from the minutes of the same meeting of the Federal Executive Council (FEC).
Both documents, titled “EC Conclusions,” were tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as official extracts from the May 21, 2003 FEC meeting. However, under cross-examination, the defence demonstrated that the two versions contained substantial differences in structure, content and features, despite each claiming to represent the outcome of the same council decision.
The development came after a day already marked by delays and confusion in court.
Although proceedings were scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m., the court did not sit until about 10:30 a.m. When the Mambilla case was eventually called at 10:45 a.m., the hearing was abruptly halted about 20 minutes later after court officials discovered that some exhibits and documents were missing.
The judge stepped down the matter to allow time for a search. The documents were eventually located hours later among cabinets and boxes that had been temporarily displaced due to ongoing renovation works in the courtroom, offices and chambers.
When proceedings resumed at about 1:45 p.m., attention quickly shifted to the testimony of EFCC investigator Umar Babangida, the prosecution’s third witness (PW3).
During cross-examination, defence counsel questioned Babangida about a claim by the defendant, former Minister of Power Olu Agunloye, that the document titled “EC Conclusions” had been tampered with.
Babangida acknowledged that the defendant had made such a claim in his written extra-judicial statement but insisted before the court that the allegation was incorrect.
Pressed further, the EFCC officer disclosed that he had conducted what he described as an “unofficial and undocumented investigation” into the matter. He also admitted that the findings of that inquiry had not been submitted to the EFCC or any court.
The witness further confirmed that investigators had written to the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) to obtain a document titled “EC Conclusions,” which he tendered in evidence as Exhibit 3D, describing it as an extract from the minutes of the May 21, 2003 FEC meeting.
However, Babangida also admitted that the EFCC later obtained another document bearing the same title from the Ministry of Power. That version was also presented as an extract from the same FEC meeting and admitted by the court as Exhibit 3K.
At that stage, the defence carefully walked the witness through both exhibits, pointing out clear and significant differences between them.
Addressing the court, defence counsel argued that it had now been established that the EFCC witness had presented two different documents as the “EC Conclusions” of the same Federal Executive Council meeting.
The submission immediately drew an objection from prosecution counsel Abba Mohammed, SAN, who urged the court to allow the witness explain why the version obtained from the SGF’s office differed from the one sourced from the Ministry of Power.
The objection sparked a brief but tense exchange between both legal teams.
The defence, however, maintained that the issue before the court was straightforward: the witness had tendered two conflicting documents as records of the same meeting.
Counsel further argued that Babangida was not the maker or custodian of either document and therefore could not authoritatively explain the discrepancies. If clarification was required, the defence said, officials from the SGF’s office or the Ministry of Power should be invited to testify.
After listening to both sides, the judge ruled that the witness would not be permitted to provide further explanations regarding the differences between the two exhibits.
The court subsequently adjourned the case to March 16, 2026, as the trial continues.
The courtroom drama has now thrown a spotlight on the authenticity of documentary evidence surrounding decisions taken by the Federal Executive Council on the long-running Mambilla power project, one of Nigeria’s most ambitious hydroelectric initiatives.
Court Spots Major Discrepancies in EFCC’s Two FEC Documents
