EFCC office
The Third Prosecuting Witness, PW3, Umar Hussein Babangida in the ongoing trial of former Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye, on Tuesday, restated before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the Federal High Court, sitting in Apo, Abuja that Agunloye was directed by the Federal Executive Council, FEC, under former President Olusegun Obasanjo to withdraw the memo of award of Mambilla Power Project contract to Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited.
In a statement by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, under cross-examination by defence counsel, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, the witness, an officer of the Agency, disclosed that FEC never asked the defendant to reduce the approval to 10 per cent government equity participation but rather directed him to withdraw the award memo.
Asked if he had come across an opinion letter contained in “Exhibit EFCC 3s” by a former Attorney General of the Federation, Michael Aondoakaa, SAN to the Federal Government for the revival of the contract award to Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited because of its legal implications, the witness dismissed it as the opinion of the former Attorney General of the Federation.
He dismissed in the same manner, the legal opinion of another former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN to the then President Muhammadu Buhari, dated May 20, 2016 that supported that of Aondoakaa on the Mambilla Hydro Electric Power project.
Asked if he knew in 2012 that there were terms of settlement that were entered in respect of the award of contract to Sunshine Power Transmission Ltd between the Minister of Power and Attorney of the Federation and two others, he was, however, overruled by the court following an objection to it by the prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, SAN.
Asked if he was aware of the law on the privatization of various aspects of power supply chain and to cite any law that mandates agencies of the federal government to obtain FEC approval before issuing contract awards, the prosecution counsel, again, objected to the question, describing it as “hypothetical, not factual and in the realm of speculation.”
The court adjourned the matter till Wednesday, February 18, 2026.
