The Mambilla power project contract award fraud trial on Tuesday shifted focus to the legal opinions issued by the Attorneys General of the Federation (AGF) for former Presidents Umaru Yar’Adua and Muhammadu Buhari regarding the controversial project.
The trial involving the former Minister of Steel and Power, Olu Agunloye, at the FCT High Court was marked by a back-and-forth exchange as the defence challenged the prosecution witness presented by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over his recollection of the investigation report.
|
|
The exchange started while EFCC investigator Umar Babangida was testifying as a prosecution witness. He said he could not remember whether the former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Michael Aondoakaa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), had written a legal opinion for former President Yar’Adua.
Following his response, Mr Agunloye’s lawyer, Adeola Adedipe, also a SAN, asked Mr Babangida to read out the investigation report, which highlighted the existence of the legal opinion and Mr Aondoakaa’s advice that the Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited (SPTCL) be resuscitated.
|
|
|
|---|
The EFCC charged the former power minister, Mr Agunloye, with fraud and forgery in connection with the $6 billion Mambilla power project. EFCC also accused him of receiving gratification and disobedience to presidential directives regarding the contract award in May 2003.
According to the anti-graft agency, Mr Agunloye disobeyed the directive by signing a letter “addressed to Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited (SPTCL),” purportedly conveying “the approval of the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the construction of the 3,960 megawatts Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Station.”
The project was a proposed 3,960 MW hydroelectric facility located in Kakara village, Taraba State, which never saw the light of day.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
Mr Agunloye was first arraigned in 2024. But following an amendment of the charges, he was re-arraigned in September 2025. He denied all the charges and described them as “baseless, false and malicious.”
The project, first awarded in 2003 to SPTCL by the Obasanjo administration, is the subject of decades of legal dispute now under international arbitration between the company and the Nigerian government.
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo, in 2023, accused Mr Agunloye of fraudulently awarding the contract to the company without approval. Mr Agunloye vehemently denied Obasanjo’s claim.
Ex-AGF Aondoakaa’s opinion
During Tuesday’s proceedings, defence lawyer Mr Adedipe asked the witness whether he was aware of the former AGF, Mr Aondoakaa’s, legal opinion dated 25 February 2008. He replied, “I cannot remember.”
When asked whether he was also aware that in the letter, Mr Aondoakaa stated that it was wrongful for the federal government of Nigeria to re-award a contract without lawfully terminating the earlier contract awarded to SPTCL, EFCC’s prosecution lawyer, Abba Mohammed, a SAN, objected.
However, the trial judge, Jude Onwuegbuzie, allowed the question. The witness responded that he could not remember.
He also said he was not aware that Mr Aondoakaa had called the federal government to revive the awarded contract to SPTCL due to legal implications.
What the witness’s investigation report said
Mr Adedipe then asked the witness to read from his investigation report. Reading out loud, he said, “The then AGF and Minister of Justice, Mr Aondoakaa, in a legal opinion to the former President Yar’Adua, recommended the contract.”
When asked if he was now aware, the witness stated, “I now remember.”
Mr Adedipe then asked whether the witness’s opinion was that the re-awarded contract be terminated, while that of SPTCL be resuscitated.
The witness replied, “That was not my opinion; it is contained in my report as the opinion of the former AGF.”
Mr Adedipe then asked if he intended to mislead the court. Mr Babangida maintained that it was not his intention to mislead the court.
Thereafter, the witness, when queried about former President Muhammadu Buhari’s era AGF, Abubakar Malami’s legal opinion to former President Buhari on 20 May 2016 on the Mambilla power project, said, “At the moment, I cannot remember it.”
No law regulating privatisation
The witness noted that during the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting, it was stated that there was no law regulating the privatisation of power supply, but that the power industry should be deregulated and privatised.
Similarly, Mr Babangida affirmed that it was at the FEC meeting that he was advised that a law be enacted for the privatisation of the power sector.
However, the witness said he was not aware that the cardinal reason for establishing the Infrastructure Concession Regulating Commission Establishment Act 2005 was to require federal government agencies to secure approval from the FEC before issuing contracts.
When Mr Adedipe asked the witness whether he had come across any law before 2005 that mandated the approval of the FEC before a contract was issued, the witness said he could not remember.
Speaking of his investigation’s conclusion that Mr Agunloye awarded the Mambilla contract to SPTCL without the approval of the FEC and against the directives of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, Mr Adedipe asked whether he knew of “any law that requires the approval of FEC before issuance of a contract award.”
Mr Mohammed objected to the question because it was hypothetical and amounted to the receipt of oral evidence, in violation of Section 128 of the Evidence Act.
However, Mr Adedipe noted that both the prosecution and defence were in court because of the witness’s investigation report, which concluded that Mr Agunloye should be charged for failing to obtain approval from the FEC.
He argued that his question was aimed at demonstrating that “the witness abides by ‘the defendant should be charged’ to court when no law was violated.”
He said the witness, “by virtue of Section 237 of the Evidence Act, is compellable in law to answer the question which seeks to test his consistency.”
READ ALSO: Alleged $6bn Fraud: Court dismisses ex-minister Agunloye’s move to stop trial
Following their submissions, the judge allowed the question. The witness replied, “Yes.”
Thereafter, Mr Adedipe asked the witness to state the law, but the judge adjourned the case till Wednesday for continuation of cross-examination.
FEC’s involvement
In his testimony during a court session in the ongoing trial, the witness told the court that Mr Agunloye failed to follow the directive of the FEC regarding the award of the controversial Mambilla power project in 2003.
He said that FEC kicked against the proposal requiring the federal government to pay $1.5billion as its 25 per cent equity participation in the $6 billion power project.
The witness said the FEC, rather than approving the proposal, asked Mr Agunloye to explore other options to ensure the government’s reduced contribution to the project.
Mr Agunloye then awarded the contract to SPTCL.
The letter disclosed that the award of the contract to SPTCL was reduced from 25 per cent to between 0 per cent and not more than 10 per cent.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
