The long-running courtroom drama surrounding the Mambilla hydropower project entered a new phase on Monday, March 30, 2026, as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) concluded the testimony of its pivotal witness, Assistant Commissioner of Police and lead investigator, Umar Babangida (PW3).
Though brief in duration, the session carried significant weight. After more than six months of intense cross-examination by defence counsel, Babangida returned to the stand for re-examination—marking what would ultimately be his final appearance in the witness box.
Rather than reopen broad arguments, the prosecution adopted a surgical approach, posing just three questions aimed at repairing perceived cracks exposed during cross-examination. The strategy immediately drew resistance from the defence, which objected strongly, labeling the questions “incompetent” and warning against any attempt to introduce new narratives at this late stage.
The defence further signaled it would demand another round of cross-examination if the court allowed such questions. However, the presiding judge, after weighing both sides, ruled in favour of the prosecution, allowing the witness to proceed.
What followed was a series of responses that subtly reframed key elements of the case.
Babangida confirmed that in the course of his investigation, he reviewed legal opinions from three former Attorneys-General of the Federation. According to his testimony, Kanu Agabi—who served under former President Olusegun Obasanjo—could not recall specifics of the 2003 events tied to the case.
He added that Michael Aondoaka, AGF during the administration of late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, maintained that his 2008 legal opinion was formed independently and not influenced by extracts of Federal Executive Council (FEC) minutes presented by the EFCC.
Similarly, Abubakar Malami, who served under former President Muhammadu Buhari, reportedly stated that his 2016 legal advice was prepared without reference to either of the two versions of the 2003 FEC minutes now in contention before the court.
In what may prove a critical detail, the witness also underscored inconsistencies in the documentary evidence itself. He told the court that the two versions of the FEC minutes differ in scope—one focusing narrowly on the Ministry of Power and the Mambilla contract, while the other captures a broader range of discussions involving multiple ministries.
Addressing a lingering issue from earlier proceedings, Babangida pointed to a directive contained in the minutes—specifically page six, paragraph four (i). However, he clarified that the directive did not emanate from the President, a distinction that could carry legal implications as the trial progresses.
With those clarifications, the prosecution formally drew the curtain on Babangida’s testimony, signaling the end of one of the most closely watched phases of the trial. It also confirmed readiness to call its next witness, identified as PW4.
The court subsequently adjourned proceedings until April 20, 2026.
As the case moves forward, the focus is expected to shift from defending past testimony to testing new evidence—setting the stage for what could be a decisive stretch in a trial that continues to attract national attention.