Two courtrooms at opposite ends of Abuja on Monday reflected the same procedural dilemma, as cases linked to the controversial Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project involving former Minister of Power, Dr. Olu Agunloye, were adjourned following the inability of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to proceed as scheduled.
The back-to-back adjournments—one civil, the other criminal—once again slowed the pace of legal scrutiny around a project that has come to symbolise Nigeria’s troubled infrastructure history and the state’s struggle to untangle accountability from delay.
At the Federal High Court, Maitama, the matter before the court was a ₦1 billion libel and defamation suit filed by Agunloye against the EFCC. The former minister is challenging public statements by the anti-graft agency in which it allegedly told Nigerians that he had been charged for a $6 billion fraud and grouped him alongside former governors and ex-ministers accused of looting public funds.
Although the court sat at 9:00 a.m., the case was not called until about 10:30 a.m. Proceedings could not move to the address stage as scheduled due to the EFCC’s failure to file its written address within the time prescribed by the court. The commission also failed to properly regularise the default and had yet to respond to the claimant’s written submissions.
Counsel to the EFCC pleaded for additional time, prompting the court to grant the commission three days to comply with all outstanding filings. The matter was adjourned until April 20, 2026.
Barely hours later, a similar obstacle emerged at the FCT High Court, Apo, where the criminal case of EFCC v. Agunloye was slated for continuation. When the court sat at noon and called the matter at about 12:40 p.m., the prosecution was unable to proceed with the planned cross-examination due to the absence of Prosecution Witness Three (PW3), Mr. Umar Babangida.
The EFCC informed the court that the witness had taken ill again and was “presently hospitalised.” With no witness available, the trial judge adjourned proceedings to February 17 and 18, 2026, fixing the dates for late-morning sittings.
Beyond the procedural setbacks, the day’s developments have renewed concerns among legal observers about trial management in high-profile corruption cases, where adjournments—arising from filing defaults or absent witnesses—have increasingly become the norm rather than the exception.
In a rare moment of courtroom levity layered with unease, members of the defence team and friends of the court openly appealed for prayers for the speedy recovery of the absent witness. Even observers described as having “not-so-good intentions” were encouraged to join in the prayers—an appeal that drew muted reactions but underscored the unusual atmosphere surrounding the proceedings.
For a case that carries national significance and international implications, Monday’s twin adjournments reinforced a familiar pattern: the law inching forward, cautiously and haltingly.
As both matters await their next hearing dates, one conclusion lingered in the corridors of the courts—justice in the Mambilla saga remains very much a work in progress.