Mambilla Trial: EFCC Witness Fails to Link Agunloye to Disobedience Charge

Fresh drama unfolded at the resumed hearing of the Mambilla Power Project trial on Thursday as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) struggled to substantiate its claim that former Minister of Power, Dr. Olu Agunloye, disobeyed a presidential directive in the award of the controversial multi-billion-naira project.

The EFCC’s star witness, Deputy Commissioner of Police Umar Babangida — code-named PW3 — who had earlier missed proceedings due to illness, took the stand at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court for cross-examination led by defence counsel, Adeola Adedipe (SAN).

However, what was expected to be a decisive moment for the prosecution quickly turned into an embarrassing setback. Under intense questioning, PW3 admitted that his own investigative report, which formed part of the evidence used to charge Agunloye, did not actually contain any record of a direct presidential directive to the former minister.

Adedipe (Defence): “Tell the court how the directive of the President to the Defendant was given — in writing, by phone, or verbally?”
PW3: “It was in the Minutes of the Federal Executive Council meeting of 21 May 2003.”
Defence: “Show the court where in the Minutes it was written that the President gave a directive to the Defendant.”
PW3: “Ehm… It is not there.”
Defence: “Therefore, if the President did not specifically give a directive to the Defendant, there cannot be a case of disobedience.”
PW3: “Correct.”

The courtroom fell silent as the witness’ admission appeared to dismantle one of the EFCC’s core allegations — that Agunloye had acted in defiance of then-President Olusegun Obasanjo in approving a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) arrangement with Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited for the 3,050MW Mambilla Hydroelectric Project.

In a second line of questioning, the defence took aim at another key claim — that Agunloye and Sunrise’s owner, Mr. Leno Adesanya, were “close associates.” PW3 had previously asserted this in his written report (admitted as Exhibit F), but again faltered under cross-examination.

Defence: “The Defendant told you he never met Mr. Adesanya before November 2002 and had met him only twice after leaving office — in 2014 and 2018?”
PW3: “No, he did not tell me so.”
Defence: “But Exhibit E3, which you submitted, shows otherwise. Read the marked paragraphs to the court.”

The prosecution objected, arguing that PW3 could not be compelled to contradict his earlier statements using a document already admitted as evidence. But after arguments from both sides, the presiding judge overruled the objection, instructing the witness to read the referenced sections aloud.

PW3 eventually confirmed that the defendant had indeed stated in his own recorded interview that he met Adesanya for the first time during his tenure as Minister and only twice more long after leaving office — in 2014 and 2018.

Legal analysts present at the court described the day’s session as a major blow to the EFCC’s case, suggesting that the prosecution’s star witness may have inadvertently weakened its central arguments.

The case, FRN vs. Olu Agunloye (CR/617/2023), has been adjourned to November 3, 10, and 12, and December 1, 2025, for continuation of cross-examination.