The Federal High Court hearing the high-profile Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project case witnessed fresh drama on Monday as a prosecution witness admitted under cross-examination that a crucial aspect of his earlier testimony was incorrect, further complicating efforts by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to defend the authenticity of documents central to its case.
The witness, Mr. John Illya, who testified as the fifth prosecution witness (PW5), was expected to reinforce the prosecution’s position on disputed Federal Executive Council (FEC) records. Instead, his testimony opened a new line of attack for the defence, which has spent weeks questioning inconsistencies surrounding official extracts of a 21 May 2003 FEC meeting.
The controversy began with the testimony of the EFCC’s lead witness, Mr. Umar Babangida (PW3), who admitted during cross-examination that the commission had tendered two different versions of what was presented as extracts from the same FEC meeting.
Seeking to clarify the discrepancy, the prosecution later called Mr. Ugochukwu (PW4), a former official in the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. However, rather than resolving the issue, his testimony appeared to deepen the controversy.
PW4 told the court that he personally certified and forwarded one of the extracts to the EFCC while serving in the SGF’s office. Comparing the documents tendered as Exhibits 3D and 3K, he reportedly informed the court that the two extracts were not identical, adding that official extracts of the same document ought not to differ unless they were deliberately made different.
Against that backdrop, PW5 entered the witness box.
During his examination-in-chief on June 1, Illya confidently testified that he certified Exhibit 3K in June 2023 while serving as an Assistant Legal Adviser in the Ministry of Power.
But under intense cross-examination by defence counsel Chief Lateef Adedipe, SAN, on Monday, the witness reversed course.
He admitted that he did not, in fact, certify the document as he had earlier told the court.
The revelation immediately triggered exchanges in the courtroom as the prosecution, led by Mr. Abba Mohammed, SAN, sought to address the inconsistency.
At one point, Adedipe objected, insisting that, “Counsel cannot give contrary evidence to what is in the proceedings and what has been said by a witness under oath.”
The defence maintained that the admission further weakened the credibility of the prosecution’s documentary evidence, which has become one of the most fiercely contested aspects of the trial.
The latest development is expected to bolster the defence’s argument that serious questions remain over the chain of custody and certification of key government records relied upon by the prosecution.
Adding another layer of intrigue to the proceedings, the prosecution informed the court that it would call one final witness, identified only as PW6.
Counsel described the prospective witness as “an elderly man widely travelled within and outside Nigeria,” a remark that immediately sparked speculation among lawyers, journalists and observers in the courtroom over the witness’s identity.
Although no name was mentioned, attention quickly turned to whether a former Nigerian president could be called to testify in the matter.
Following the day’s proceedings, the court adjourned until June 10, 2026, for the continuation of hearing.
The trial judge also fixed June 18 and July 2 for further proceedings.
As the case moves toward the close of the prosecution’s evidence, the battle over the authenticity, certification and integrity of official government documents has emerged as one of the defining issues in a trial that continues to attract national attention because of its connection to the long-delayed Mambilla power project.
This version reads more like a front-page legal affairs story, building tension around the witness reversal, the disputed documents, and the mystery surrounding the final witness