The trial of a former Minister of Power and Steel, Dr. Olu Agunloye, continued on Wednesday before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the FCT High Court in Apo, where a witness for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) admitted to mistakenly stamping the wrong document.
Witness Testimony
The witness, Iliya Iyakwari, the fifth prosecution witness (PW5), testified in the case involving alleged $6 billion infractions in the contract award of the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power project. Agunloye faces an amended seven-count charge, including disobeying a presidential directive, conspiracy, forgery, and receiving gratification.
The EFCC alleges that in 2019, Agunloye received a gratification of N5.212 million from Leno Adesanya of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited through Jide Abiodun Sotirin, deposited into his Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) account, for conveying the Federal Government's approval for the construction of the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Station. Additionally, the commission claims that while serving as minister, Agunloye conspired with Adesanya to forge a letter titled “Construction of 3,960MW Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Station on a build, operate and transfer” basis. Agunloye has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Cross-Examination Details
During the resumed hearing, defense counsel Adeola Adedipe, SAN, continued cross-examining the witness. He sought to show the witness Exhibit EFCC 3K, an extract from the Federal Executive Council (FEC) conclusions of May 31, 2003. The witness confirmed that this was the extract forwarded to the EFCC by the Federal Ministry of Power. When asked if the extract had been altered or tampered with, the witness stated that it was what was forwarded to them and then to the EFCC, adding, “So I wouldn’t know if it was tampered with.” He noted that only copies were forwarded, and he never saw the original.
Adedipe inquired about the witness’s experience as a lawyer, to which Iyakwari replied that he had been at the bar for 21 years. Asked to explain what it means to have a document certified as a true copy, he said it means a photocopy of the original document. He testified that the letter from the Ministry of Power to the EFCC was an original document received by his department in June 2023. When asked why he certified the document in 2024 if it was original, he said, “I believe it was an omission on our part. A copy sent was not certified; it was after it was received by the EFCC that they realized the copy was not certified. In January 2024, a staff of the EFCC, Mr. Babangida, brought the document back to my legal director and reminded him the error must be rectified.” The witness added that his director then gave him the document to certify, which explains why the certification date is January 26, 2024, different from the forwarding date. “It was in the process of that I mistakenly stamped the original letter dated June 27, 2023. After stamping it, I gave it back,” he said.
Further Questions
The witness confirmed that the letter was addressed to the EFCC Executive Chairman, attention Director of Operations. He admitted that his director orally instructed him to certify the document. He also stated that he did not see the original FEC conclusions at the time the extract was forwarded for certification. He suggested that Mr. Babangida, who brought the letter to his department, might be a prosecution witness since he works for the EFCC. When asked if he knew that Babangida is the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) advising the prosecution, Iyakwari said he was not aware and did not know if the legal department tampered with the extract.
Adedipe then asked, “Are you aware that Mr. Babangida tendered before the court another FEC conclusions which is not the same in form and substance with the one you certified?” At this point, prosecution counsel Abba Mohammed, SAN, objected, arguing that the witness could not be questioned about a document he did not tender. He cited several authorities. In response, Adedipe argued that the objection was not rooted in law and that the cited cases were narrow in expression. After listening to both submissions, Justice Onwuegbuzie upheld the objection and adjourned the case until June 18 for continuation.
