The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) appeared to come under increasing pressure in the ongoing Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project trial after a series of admissions by its own witnesses handed the defence fresh ammunition to challenge the foundation of the prosecution’s case.
What began as a trial focused on the controversial award of the $6 billion Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project contract has increasingly evolved into a battle over the credibility of the documents upon which the prosecution relies.
At the centre of the dispute are Federal Executive Council (FEC) records from May 21, 2003, which the EFCC has presented as crucial evidence against former Minister of Power and Steel, Dr. Olu Agunloye, who is facing seven counts before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the FCT High Court, Abuja.
But rather than strengthening the prosecution’s case, recent testimony appeared to deepen questions about the authenticity, handling and certification of those documents.
The defence first drew attention to what it described as inconsistencies in the evidence of Assistant Commissioner of Police Umar Babangida (PW3), who allegedly tendered two different versions of the same FEC extract, marked as Exhibits 3D and 3K.
Seeking to reinforce its case, the prosecution subsequently called additional witnesses from the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) and the Ministry of Power.
However, those efforts appeared to produce more complications than clarity.
A legal officer from the SGF’s office, identified as PW4, told the court that official extracts should be exact reproductions of original government records and should not differ in content or form. Yet he acknowledged that the versions before the court were not identical.
The most damaging moment for the prosecution came during the testimony of PW5, Barrister John Illya Iyakwari of the Ministry of Power.
Under cross-examination, the witness admitted that he certified one of the disputed documents without first comparing it with the original FEC minutes.
He further disclosed that the document had passed through EFCC personnel before being returned months later for certification.
PW5 also conceded that he could not confirm whether any of the versions presented before the court had been altered at any stage because he never checked them against the original records.
The witness further acknowledged that he stamped and certified documents without direct comparison to the originals and relied largely on oral instructions rather than formal written requests.
The admissions appeared to strengthen the defence’s argument that the chain of custody and certification process surrounding the documents was deeply flawed.
In a further setback for the prosecution, an attempt by lead counsel Abba Mohammed (SAN) to halt parts of the cross-examination met resistance from the court. After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Onwuegbuzie overruled the objection and allowed the defence to continue.
For observers of the trial, the proceedings marked another day in which the spotlight shifted away from the allegations against Agunloye and onto the integrity of the evidence assembled by investigators.
With each witness called to shore up the prosecution’s case seemingly generating fresh questions, the defence appears to be gaining momentum in its effort to portray the case as one built on disputed documents and procedural irregularities.
As proceedings resume on June 18, attention will be focused on whether the EFCC can repair the growing cracks in its documentary evidence or whether the defence’s sustained assault on the prosecution’s exhibits will further undermine a case that is increasingly facing difficult questions in court.
