Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of a Federal High Court, sitting in Apo, Abuja has adjourned proceedings in the trial of former Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye till April 20, 2026
The former minister is facing prosecution by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on an amended seven-count charge bordering on official corruption and fraudulent award of Mambilla Power Project contract to the tune of $6billion (Six Billion United States Dollars) to Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited.
At Monday’s proceedings, Third Prosecution Witness, PW3, Umar Hussein Babangida during re-examination by prosecuting counsel, Abba Mohammed (SAN) clarified that the investigation team invited three former Attorney Generals of the Federation, Micheal Aondokaa (SAN) Abubakar Malami (SAN) and Kanu Agabi (SAN) and they volunteered their statements.
Both Aondokaa and Malami offered written statements but Agabi volunteered an oral statement.
He added that Agabi told the investigating team that he cannot recall the details and outcome of the Federal Executive Council meeting at that time but advised we rely on documents obtained from the office of the Secretary of the Federation.
However, counsel to the defendant, Samuel Falade objected to the testimony of Babangida, describing it as incompetent.
His submission was that the witness was making statements of another person who had not been called to give evidence and that Babangida never mentioned or presented the evidence of the AGFs during his testimony in chief, regarding it as a fresh matter for debate.
Responding, the EFCC’s counsel referred to Section 215 sub section 3 of the Evidence Act, which made it clear that re- examination is not limited to clarity only.
“The position of the law in re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred in cross examination as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Aigbadion vs State 2000 for SCNJ page 1,” he said.
“My lord in that case, the Supreme Court held that the re-examination of a witness goes beyond explaining matters referred in.
The court of Appeal reinstated this position in Mohammed vs Gbugbu and others reported in 2018 LPEFR 44494 Court of Appeal.
They also held that among other things, re-examination is an avenue for a witness to state the whole truth of any matter which was not dealt with in examination.
“Now that the witness has the right to explain and clarify matters on 17 February 2026, which was the foundation date of this question seeking explanation, where he was asked about the opinion given by Malami and Aondokaa which he gave answers for the first time while they were serving as AGFs, this was not part of his evidence- in -chief. Secondly on 24 of November 2025, the same defence asked the PW3 series of questions on Kanu Agabi. It is necessary for the witness to explain that part before your lordship,” he said.
He concluded by stating that re-examination is for re-explanation of matters referred to in cross examination, suggesting that the questions stemmed out of cross examination from the defence.
Ruling on the matter, Justice Onwuegbuzie upheld the position of the prosecution, allowing the witness to continue with his testimony.
Continuing, Babangida said “Mr Aondokaa, SAN stated that if he had seen the conclusion of the FEC meeting he would have not given any legal opinion. While Malami, SAN said he relied on the legal opinion of Mr Aondokaaa.”
Mohammed further asked, “on March, 11 2026, March 16, 2026, during your cross examination by the defence, you were asked to confirm Exhibit EFCC 3K and EFCC 3D are extracts of the FEC meeting of 21 May 2003, explain what is an extract”.
Responding, Babangida explained that “Exhibit EFCC 3K is an extract that contains only the deliberation on Mambilla Hydro Electricity based on the memo submitted by the defendant to the FEC, which contains deliberation, resolution and directives to the defendant.
“While Exhibit EFCC 3D is an extract that contains deliberation of other ministries other than that of the ministry of the defendant which showed deliberations of ministries before the defendant, the ministry of the defendant in question and deliberations of the ministries after that of the defendant.”
After listening to the submissions, Justice Onwuegbuzie adjourned the matter to April 20, 2026 for continuation of trial
