The trial of former Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye, in the alleged $6 billion Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project fraud case continued at the Federal High Court in Apo, Abuja on Tuesday, with a prosecution witness saying the Federal Executive Council under former President Olusegun Obasanjo specifically ordered the withdrawal of the contract award memorandum and not the amendment of the federal government's equity stake in the project.
Testifying before Jude Onwuegbuzie (Justice), the prosecution's third witness, Omar Hussein Babangida, an operative of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, told the court that contrary to suggestions by the defence, the FEC did not direct the former minister to reduce the federal government's equity participation in the project to 10 per cent.
Instead, he said, the Council's decision was to withdraw the award memorandum in its entirety.
The witness clarified while answering questions from defense counsel Adeola Adedipe.
During the proceedings, the defense drew attention to a legal opinion referred to as “Exhibit EFCC 3S”, purportedly written by former Attorney General of the Federation, Michael Eyondoka, advising the Federal Government on reviving the contract award to Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited due to the legal implications of the award.
Also read: EFCC tells court Obasanjo ordered N11bn top-up for Mambilla hydropower project
Babangida dismissed the document as merely the personal opinion of a former Attorney General.
He similarly rejected another legal opinion by former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, dated May 20, 2016, addressed to then President Muhammadu Buhari, which reportedly supported Ayondoka's position on the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.
Attempts by the defense to question the witness whether he was aware of the terms of the agreement allegedly made in 2012 regarding the award of the contract to Sunrise Power Transmission Limited were stopped after prosecution lawyer Abba Mohammed objected.
The court sustained the objection and rejected the line of questioning.
Further efforts by the defense to examine witnesses on the legal framework governing privatization in the power sector, including whether any law obliges federal agencies to obtain FEC approval before awarding contracts, also met resistance.
The prosecution objected, arguing that the question was imaginary and hypothetical, and therefore inadmissible.
Citing Section 128 of the Evidence Act, Mohammed argued that the investigation report before the court did not refer to any specific law and the witness should not be forced to interpret the legal provisions.
The presiding judge sustained the objection.
The case was later adjourned to Wednesday, February 18, 2026, for further hearing.
