Court Overrules Prosecution Objection as Defence Highlights Differences Between Two Purported FEC Extracts
By A1NEWS International / June 18, 2026
ABUJA,Nigeria – Fresh questions emerged over the authenticity and consistency of documentary evidence in the ongoing trial of former Minister of Power and Steel, Dr. Olu Agunloye, after an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) witness identified notable differences between two documents purportedly linked to the same Federal Executive Council (FEC) proceedings.
The development occurred on Thursday during proceedings before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Apo, where Agunloye is standing trial over allegations relating to the controversial $6 billion Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project contract.
The witness, Mr. Iliya Iyakwari, who appeared as the fifth prosecution witness (PW5), came under intense cross-examination by the defence as questions were raised regarding two separate documents tendered before the court and allegedly connected to decisions of the Federal Executive Council.
Background to the Charges
Agunloye is being prosecuted by the EFCC on an amended seven-count charge bordering on alleged disobedience of presidential directives, conspiracy, forgery, and receipt of gratification.
The anti-graft agency alleges that the former minister unlawfully facilitated the award of the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project contract and later received financial benefits linked to the transaction.
According to the EFCC, Agunloye allegedly received N5.212 million in 2019 through his Guaranty Trust Bank account from Mr. Jide Abiodun Sotirin on behalf of Mr. Leno Adesanya, promoter of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited (SPTCL).
The commission claims the payment constituted gratification for conveying Federal Government approval for the construction of the 3,960-megawatt Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Station.
The EFCC further alleges that Agunloye conspired with Adesanya to forge official documents relating to the award of the project under a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) arrangement.
The former minister has consistently denied all allegations and pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Defence Questions Authenticity of FEC Documents
During Thursday’s proceedings, lead defence counsel, Chief Adeola Adedipe, SAN, focused his cross-examination on documents tendered by the prosecution and certified by the witness.
Adedipe drew attention to Exhibit EFCC 3K, a document certified by the witness as a true extract of a Federal Executive Council conclusion.
When questioned by the defence, Iyakwari stated that he could not identify any other FEC conclusion differing in form or content from the document he certified.
The witness maintained that Exhibit EFCC 3K was the only extract known to him and insisted that he was unaware of any other version of the FEC conclusion relating to the matter.
He further informed the court that he was not aware of any evidence indicating that the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) had forwarded another extract of the FEC decision to the Ministry of Power.
Prosecution Objects as Defence Introduces Second Document
The proceedings took a dramatic turn when the defence sought to question the witness on Exhibit EFCC 3D, another document described as an extract of the May 2003 Federal Executive Council conclusions.
However, prosecution counsel, Mohammed Abubakar Abba, SAN, objected to the line of questioning.
The prosecution argued that the witness neither authored nor produced Exhibit EFCC 3D and therefore lacked the competence to testify on its contents or answer questions arising from it.
Abba urged the court to reject the defence’s attempt to examine the witness on a document he did not prepare.
Court Overrules Objection
Responding to the objection, Adedipe argued that both Exhibits EFCC 3K and EFCC 3D purportedly originated from the same May 2003 Federal Executive Council proceedings and were therefore relevant to the case.
He contended that the witness had already demonstrated familiarity with the contents of the FEC conclusions by certifying Exhibit EFCC 3K as a true copy of the original document.
The senior advocate further relied on Section 222(2) of the Evidence Act, submitting that the law permits a witness to be questioned on relevant documents, even where such documents were prepared by another person.
According to him, the witness was in the best position to explain whether there were material differences between the two purported FEC extracts.
After considering submissions from both parties, Justice Onwuegbuzie overruled the prosecution’s objection and directed the witness to answer the defence’s questions.
Witness Identifies Key Difference
Under further questioning, the witness confirmed that Exhibit EFCC 3K contained what he described as an isolated Paragraph 14 extracted from the FEC conclusions.
When presented with Exhibit EFCC 3D and asked whether it contained a similar isolated Paragraph 14, the witness responded in the negative.
“I cannot see any isolated Paragraph 14, My Lord. Exhibit EFCC 3D is from the Presidency through the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. As I stated earlier, I work in the Legal Services Department of the Federal Ministry of Power,” the witness told the court.
The testimony highlighted a distinction between the two documents, a development that could become a significant issue as the trial progresses.
Significance of Documentary Evidence
Legal analysts observing the proceedings note that documentary evidence remains central to the prosecution and defence arguments in the Mambilla contract case.
The dispute over the nature, origin and contents of FEC records may ultimately influence the court’s assessment of decisions surrounding the award of the multi-billion-dollar hydroelectric project, one of Nigeria’s most ambitious power infrastructure initiatives.
Observers say the defence appears determined to challenge the credibility and consistency of official records relied upon by the prosecution, while the EFCC continues to maintain that the documents support its allegations against the former minister.
Adjournment
Following the conclusion of cross-examination, Justice Onwuegbuzie adjourned the matter until July 2, 2026, for continuation of hearing.
The court is expected to continue taking evidence from witnesses as both the prosecution and defence intensify efforts to establish their respective positions in the high-profile corruption and forgery trial.
Thursday’s proceedings introduced a new dimension to the Mambilla Hydroelectric Project trial as questions emerged regarding differences between two purported Federal Executive Council extracts presented before the court. While the defence views the discrepancies as significant, the prosecution maintains its case against the former minister. With the trial set to resume in July, attention will remain focused on how the court evaluates the contested documents and their implications for one of Nigeria’s most closely watched corruption cases.
Leave a Reply