The ongoing Mambilla power project trial took a decisive turn on Tuesday as the defence shifted focus from personalities to the integrity of the investigation itself, pressing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) witness on alleged inconsistencies and evidentiary gaps.
When proceedings resumed at 1:53 p.m., defence counsel zeroed in on Prosecution Witness 3 (PW3), Mr. Umar Babangida of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, framing the cross-examination around a central question: whether the prosecution’s case is supported by verifiable documentation or by unrecorded claims.
Focus on Documentation
In a methodical line of questioning, the defence first established that the ICRC Act of 2005 was not violated by the defendant — a point PW3 confirmed under oath.
The interrogation then moved to the alleged prior relationship between the defendant and Mr. Leno Adesanya, Chief Executive Officer of Sunrise Company. PW3 initially maintained that the defendant knew Adesanya before assuming office as Minister of Power.
However, when directed to rely on the defendant’s own statement, PW3 read:
“I have known of Mr. Leno Adesanya but I never met him before I became Minister of Power which was in early December 2002.”
Pressed further, the witness claimed the defendant had personally told him otherwise during official interactions. But when asked whether such information was formally documented, PW3 admitted that it was not.
The turning point came when the court asked the witness to review all exhibits tendered. After examining the documents, PW3 stated that he could not identify any material evidence establishing a pre-existing relationship between the defendant and Adesanya or Sunrise Company before or during the defendant’s tenure as minister.
Courtroom Tensions
The exchanges triggered repeated objections from lead prosecution counsel, Mr. Mohammed Abba, SAN, who sought to clarify aspects of the testimony. At moments, tempers flared between both legal teams, prompting the presiding judge to intervene and caution counsel against arguing over the witness’s answers.
“That’s my job,” the judge remarked, directing that the witness be allowed to respond without interruption.
Broader Implications
Beyond the dramatic exchanges, Tuesday’s proceedings spotlighted a deeper issue — the evidentiary foundation of the prosecution’s case. By highlighting contradictions and the absence of documentary backing, the defence appeared intent on challenging not just the witness’s credibility but the thoroughness of the EFCC’s investigative process.
The matter was adjourned to March 11 and 12, 2026, for continuation of PW3’s cross-examination.
As the trial progresses, attention is likely to remain fixed not only on the high-profile Mambilla project but also on the legal standards required to sustain corruption prosecutions in Nigeria’s courts.