The third prosecution witness (PW3), Umar Hussein Babangida, on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, restated before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the Federal High Court sitting in Apo, Abuja, that former Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye, was directed by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) under former President Olusegun Obasanjo to withdraw the memo awarding the Mambilla Power Project contract to Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited.
Under cross-examination by defence counsel, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, the witness, an officer of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), disclosed that the FEC did not ask the defendant to reduce the approval to 10 per cent government equity participation but rather directed him to withdraw the award memo entirely.
When asked whether 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 regarding the revival of the contract award to Sunrise Power Transmission Company Limited due to its legal implications, the witness dismissed it as merely the opinion of the former Attorney General.
He similarly dismissed the legal opinion of another former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, dated May 20, 2016, addressed to then-President Muhammadu Buhari, which supported Aondoakaa’s position on the Mambilla Hydro Electric Power Project.
When asked whether he was aware that in 2012 terms of settlement were entered into concerning the award of the contract to Sunrise Power Transmission Ltd between the Minister of Power, the Attorney General of the Federation, and two others, the question was overruled by the court following an objection by prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, SAN.
Further, when asked whether he was aware of laws on the privatization of various aspects of the power supply chain and to cite any law mandating federal government agencies to obtain FEC approval before issuing contract awards, the prosecution counsel again objected, describing the question as “hypothetical, not factual, and in the realm of speculation.”
He added that the question violated Section 128 of the Evidence Act, noting that, “This report does not make reference to any law.” According to him, the witness “should not be made to quote laws.”
The court adjourned the matter until Wednesday, February 18, 2026.
