Fresh drama unfolded on Wednesday in the ongoing Mambilla power project trial after the court was presented with two conflicting versions of documents said to be extracts from the minutes of the same meeting of the Federal Executive Council (FEC).
Both documents, titled “EC Conclusions,” were tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as evidence relating to the FEC meeting of May 21, 2003, but were later shown in court to contain substantial differences in structure, features and content, despite each claiming to be an official record of the same decision.
The day’s proceedings were also marked by unusual delays and confusion over missing court documents.
Although the court was scheduled to sit at 9:00 a.m., proceedings did not begin until about 10:30 a.m. When the Mambilla case was eventually called at 10:45 a.m., the hearing was abruptly interrupted about 20 minutes later after it emerged that some exhibits and key court documents were missing.
The judge stepped down the case to allow court officials search for the misplaced materials. The documents were eventually discovered hours later among cabinets and boxes temporarily moved from their usual locations due to ongoing renovation works in the courtroom, offices and chambers.
Hearing resumed at about 1:45 p.m., setting the stage for what would become the most dramatic moment of the day.
During cross-examination, the defence counsel questioned EFCC investigator Umar Babangida, the prosecution’s third witness (PW3), about an earlier claim by former Minister of Power Olu Agunloye, the defendant in the case, that the document titled “EC Conclusions” had been tampered with.
Babangida acknowledged that the defendant had made the allegation in his written extra-judicial statement but insisted the claim was incorrect.
However, when asked how he arrived at that conclusion, the EFCC officer told the court he conducted an “unofficial and undocumented investigation.” He also admitted that the outcome of that inquiry had not been submitted to the commission or to any court.
Under further questioning, Babangida confirmed that investigators had written to the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) and obtained a document titled “EC Conclusions,” which he tendered in evidence as Exhibit 3D, describing it as an extract from the minutes of the May 21, 2003 FEC meeting.
But the witness also admitted that the EFCC later obtained another document bearing the same title from the Ministry of Power. That version was equally presented as an extract from the minutes of the same meeting and admitted by the court as Exhibit 3K.
At that point, the defence systematically led the witness through both exhibits in open court, drawing attention to clear and significant differences between the two documents.
Addressing the court, the defence counsel declared that the situation was now evident before the court: the EFCC witness had tendered two different documents as the “EC Conclusions” of the same Federal Executive Council meeting.
As the judge carefully recorded the proceedings, prosecution counsel Abba Mohammed, SAN, quickly rose in objection.
He urged the court to allow the witness explain why the document obtained from the SGF’s office differed from the version sourced from the Ministry of Power. The objection briefly triggered heated exchanges between the prosecution and defence teams.
But the defence insisted the issue was straightforward.
Counsel argued that:
the defendant had earlier maintained that the “EC Conclusions” document had been altered;
the EFCC witness had admitted presenting two versions of the document as Exhibits 3D and 3K;
both versions had now been shown before the court to contain significant discrepancies.
The defence further argued that Babangida was neither the author nor custodian of either document and therefore could not provide authoritative explanations for the inconsistencies. If the prosecution wished to clarify the differences, counsel said, it should invite officials from the SGF’s office or the Ministry of Power to testify.
After listening to both sides, the judge ruled that the witness would not be allowed to offer further explanations regarding the discrepancies between the two exhibits.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter to March 16, 2026, as the closely watched trial continues.
The development has raised fresh questions around documentary evidence linked to decisions taken by the Federal Executive Council on the long-running Mambilla power project, one of Nigeria’s most ambitious hydroelectric initiatives.