Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the Federal High Court, sitting in Apo, Abuja, has adjourned proceedings in the trial of former Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye, until April 20, 2026.
The former minister is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on an amended seven-count charge bordering on official corruption and the alleged fraudulent award of the Mambila Power Project contract, valued at $6 billion, to Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited.
At Monday’s proceedings, the third prosecution witness (PW3), Umar Hussein Babangida, during re-examination by prosecuting counsel, Abba Mohammed, SAN, clarified that the investigation team invited three former Attorneys-General of the Federation—Michael Aondoakaa, SAN; Abubakar Malami, SAN; and Kanu Agabi, SAN—who all volunteered statements.
He stated that Aondoakaa and Malami submitted written statements, while Agabi provided an oral statement.
Babangida further disclosed that Agabi told the investigating team he could not recall the details or outcome of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting at the time, but advised that they rely on documents obtained from the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.
However, counsel to the defendant, Samuel Falade, objected to Babangida’s testimony, describing it as incompetent. He argued that the witness was presenting statements made by individuals who had not been called to testify and noted that Babangida had neither mentioned nor presented such evidence during his examination-in-chief, thereby introducing fresh matters.
In response, EFCC counsel referred to Section 215(3) of the Evidence Act, stating that re-examination is not limited to clarification alone.
“The position of the law is that re-examination shall be directed at explaining matters referred to during cross-examination, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Aigbadion v. State (2000),” he said.
“My Lord, in that case, the Supreme Court held that re-examination goes beyond merely explaining matters raised. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed this position in Mohammed v. Gbugbu & Ors (2018) LPELR-44494 (CA), holding that re-examination provides an opportunity for a witness to state the whole truth on any matter not fully addressed during examination.”
He further argued that the witness had the right to clarify issues raised during cross-examination on February 17, 2026, particularly concerning the legal opinions of Malami and Aondoakaa, which were not part of his evidence-in-chief. He also referenced questions asked by the defence on November 24, 2025, regarding Kanu Agabi, stressing the need for the witness to address those matters.
He concluded that the re-examination was necessary to clarify issues arising from cross-examination.
Ruling on the objection, Justice Onwuegbuzie upheld the prosecution’s position and allowed the witness to continue his testimony.
Continuing, Babangida stated: “Mr Aondoakaa, SAN, said that if he had seen the conclusion of the FEC meeting, he would not have given his legal opinion. Malami, SAN, stated that he relied on the legal opinion of Mr Aondoakaa.”
Mohammed further asked: “During your cross-examination on March 11 and March 16, 2026, you were asked to confirm that Exhibits EFCC 3K and EFCC 3D are extracts of the FEC meeting of May 21, 2003. Please explain what an extract is.”
In response, Babangida explained: “Exhibit EFCC 3K is an extract containing only the deliberations on the Mambila Hydroelectric Power Project, based on the memo submitted by the defendant to the FEC. It includes deliberations, resolutions, and directives to the defendant.
“Exhibit EFCC 3D, on the other hand, contains deliberations of other ministries—before, during, and after that of the defendant’s ministry.”
After listening to the submissions, Justice Onwuegbuzie adjourned the matter until April 20, 2026, for continuation of trial.
