The courtroom drama in the long-running Mambilla Power Project trial took a dramatic twist on Thursday when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) failed to establish that former Minister of Power, Dr. Olu Agunloye, disobeyed a directive from the President — a key pillar of the case against him.
The EFCC’s star witness, Deputy Commissioner of Police Umar Babangida, who has served in the commission for a decade, finally appeared for cross-examination after recovering from illness that stalled proceedings on September 18.
But his testimony before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the FCT High Court quickly unravelled under pressure from the defence team led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Adeola Adedipe.
Babangida, code-named PW3, admitted during cross-examination that there was no record of any direct instruction from the President to Agunloye in the minutes of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting cited as evidence by the EFCC.
Defence: “Tell the court how the President’s directive to the Defendant was given — in writing, by phone, email, or verbally?”
PW3: “It was in the Minutes of the FEC meeting of May 21, 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: “If there was no directive, then the Defendant could not have disobeyed the President.”
PW3: “Correct.”
The admission stunned the courtroom, effectively puncturing one of the EFCC’s central allegations — that Agunloye acted in defiance of then-President Olusegun Obasanjo in awarding the Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) contract for the $6 billion, 3,050MW Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project to Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited.
The defence then pressed further, taking aim at another EFCC claim that Agunloye and Sunrise boss, Mr. Leno Adesanya, were “close associates.”
Babangida confirmed that he had made this assertion in his report (admitted as Exhibit F), but was forced to retract when confronted with contradictory evidence.
Defence: “The Defendant told you he never met Mr. Adesanya before November 2002, and only met him twice after leaving office — in 2014 and 2018, correct?”
PW3: “No, he did not tell me so.”
Defence: “Exhibit E3 — which you submitted — says otherwise. Please read the marked paragraphs.”
The prosecution objected, arguing that the defence could not compel the witness to contradict his prior statements. After brief arguments, the judge overruled the objection and directed the witness to read the relevant portions.
PW3 complied, confirming that Agunloye had indeed stated during interrogation that his interactions with Adesanya were limited to those occasions.
The session ended with what observers described as a major setback for the EFCC, as its key witness appeared to have undermined two of the commission’s primary allegations.
The case, Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Olu Agunloye (CR/617/2023), was adjourned to November 3, 10, and 12, and December 1, 2025, for continuation of cross-examination.