A key prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of former Minister of Power and Steel, Dr. Olu Agunloye, admitted under cross-examination that part of his earlier testimony regarding the certification of official government documents was untrue, raising fresh questions over the credibility of evidence in the high-profile Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project prosecution.
By A1NEWS International | June 8, 2026
Abuja, Nigeria – Proceedings in the high-profile trial of former Minister of Power and Steel, Dr. Olu Agunloye, took a dramatic turn on Monday when an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) witness appeared to contradict his own testimony under intense cross-examination before the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Apo, Abuja.
The witness, Iliya Iyakwari, the fifth prosecution witness (PW5), admitted that a previous claim regarding the certification of official Federal Executive Council (FEC) documents in June 2023 was inaccurate after being confronted by the defence.
The development unfolded during the ongoing prosecution of Agunloye over allegations linked to the controversial Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project contract, one of Nigeria’s largest and most contentious power infrastructure projects.
THE CASE AGAINST AGUNLOYE
Dr. Agunloye is facing an amended seven-count charge filed by the EFCC before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie.
The charges include allegations of disobedience to presidential directives, conspiracy, forgery and receiving unlawful gratification in connection with the award of the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project contract.
The anti-graft agency alleges that Agunloye received ₦5.212 million through intermediaries linked to Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited as gratification for conveying federal approval relating to the project.
The EFCC further claims that the former minister conspired with officials of the company to forge documents connected to the Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) agreement for the construction of the 3,960-megawatt Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Station.
Agunloye has consistently denied all allegations and pleaded not guilty to the charges.
DEFENCE CHALLENGES WITNESS CREDIBILITY
Monday’s proceedings focused largely on the credibility and consistency of testimony provided by prosecution witness Iliya Iyakwari.
During cross-examination, defence counsel, Chief Adeola Adedipe, SAN, confronted the witness with Exhibit EFCC 3K, a document presented as an extract of a Federal Executive Council meeting.
Adedipe asked the witness to identify the date on which he certified the document.
In response, the witness stated that there was no indication that he certified the document in June 2023.
The defence quickly pointed out that the witness had previously suggested that the certification process occurred during that period.
PROSECUTION OBJECTS TO LINE OF QUESTIONING
The revelation immediately sparked legal arguments between the prosecution and defence teams.
Lead prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, SAN, objected to the defence’s line of questioning.
He argued that the issue was linked to a document introduced by the defence and that the questioning could potentially create unfairness.
The prosecution further relied on constitutional provisions relating to fair hearing, arguing that the witness’s earlier statement should be considered in its broader context.
According to Mohammed, the witness had earlier testified that activities related to the documents occurred in June 2023.
COURT SIDES WITH DEFENCE
The defence, however, strongly rejected the prosecution’s objection.
Adedipe argued that under the Evidence Act, a witness’s credibility, accuracy and reliability are legitimate subjects of cross-examination.
He maintained that the witness had voluntarily affirmed earlier that he certified the documents in 2023 and that the defence was entitled to test the truthfulness of that assertion.
The senior lawyer further submitted that a witness could not be shielded from scrutiny where contradictions emerge between oral testimony and documentary evidence.
Justice Onwuegbuzie agreed with the defence’s position and overruled the prosecution’s objection.
The ruling cleared the way for further questioning.
WITNESS ADMITS PRIOR CLAIM WAS INCORRECT
Following the court’s ruling, Adedipe directly asked the witness whether it was untrue that he certified the document in 2023 as earlier suggested.
The witness answered in the affirmative, effectively acknowledging the inconsistency.
The admission immediately became one of the most significant moments of the day’s proceedings, potentially providing the defence with grounds to challenge aspects of the prosecution’s documentary evidence.
Legal observers noted that contradictions in witness testimony can become crucial factors in assessing credibility during criminal trials.
HOW THE DOCUMENT ENTERED THE CASE
Earlier during examination-in-chief, the witness had testified that he currently serves as Assistant Director, Legal Services, in the Federal Ministry of Power.
According to him, the EFCC wrote to the ministry in June 2023 requesting certified extracts of a Federal Executive Council meeting held on May 31, 2003.
He explained that the request was routed through the Permanent Secretary and subsequently assigned to the legal department.
The witness stated that relevant records were retrieved and forwarded to the legal unit, where he was instructed by senior officials to certify the documents before transmitting them to the EFCC.
He identified the documents in court and confirmed their authenticity as those processed through official channels.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONTRADICTION
Although the contradiction may appear procedural, legal experts say credibility remains central to criminal prosecution.
Where documentary evidence forms part of the foundation of a criminal case, inconsistencies regarding certification, handling, or authenticity can attract heightened judicial scrutiny.
However, analysts caution that a contradiction by a witness does not automatically invalidate the prosecution’s case.
Rather, it becomes one of several factors the court will consider when evaluating the totality of evidence presented by both parties.
THE MAMBILLA PROJECT: A LONG-RUNNING CONTROVERSY
The Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project has remained one of Nigeria’s most controversial infrastructure projects for more than two decades.
Originally conceived to address Nigeria’s chronic electricity deficit, the project has become the subject of legal disputes, international arbitration proceedings and corruption allegations.
The EFCC’s case against Agunloye is one of several legal battles linked to the project’s complicated history.
The outcome of the trial could have implications not only for the former minister but also for ongoing discussions surrounding accountability in major public infrastructure contracts.
COURT ADJOURNS FOR CONTINUATION OF TRIAL
Following the conclusion of Monday’s proceedings, Justice Onwuegbuzie adjourned the matter until Wednesday for the continuation of hearing.
The court is expected to hear further cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as both sides continue to contest the facts surrounding the controversial contract award.
The admission by an EFCC witness that part of his earlier testimony was inaccurate has introduced a new layer of complexity into the prosecution of former Minister of Power and Steel, Dr. Olu Agunloye.
While the contradiction alone may not determine the outcome of the trial, it has provided the defence with a significant opportunity to challenge the reliability of aspects of the prosecution’s evidence.
As proceedings continue, the court’s ultimate determination will likely depend on the weight, consistency and credibility of the entire body of evidence presented before it.
Leave a Reply