Agunloye cut FG stake in Mambilla project by $900m without approval, witness tells court

AN investigator with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has told the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Apo that a former minister of power, Olu Agunloye, reduced the federal government’s equity stake in the Mambilla hydropower project by about $900 million without presidential authorisation.

The investigator, Umar Hussein Babangida, gave the testimony on Monday while appearing as the third prosecution witness in the ongoing trial before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie.

Agunloye is being prosecuted on a seven-count charge filed by the EFCC, bordering on alleged disobedience of a presidential directive, conspiracy, forgery, and receipt of gratification linked to the Mambilla hydropower project.

The anti-graft agency accused the former minister of unlawfully awarding the contract for the 3,960 megawatts Mambilla hydroelectric power plant to Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited.

READ ALSO: Fourteen power plants sign debt settlements as Nigeria clears N501bn power arrears

The commission further alleged that he received N5.212 million in 2019 through his Guaranty Trust Bank account, a payment said to have been made by Jide Abiodun Sotirin on the instruction of Leno Adesanya, promoter of Sunrise Power.

Agunloye has, however, denied all allegations and pleaded not guilty. During Monday’s proceedings, Babangida, an assistant commissioner of police attached to the EFCC, testified under cross-examination by defence counsel Adeola Adedipe.

He told the court that initial proposals recommended a 25 percent equity stake for the federal government in the project, valued at roughly $1.5 billion.

However, he said the contract awarded in 2003 by Agunloye reduced government participation to between zero and 10 percent.

When asked to confirm that the adjustment represented a difference of about $900 million, Babangida agreed with the calculation but rejected the suggestion that it amounted to savings for the government.

He maintained that the reduction was carried out unilaterally without presidential approval. Babangida also told the court that Agunloye had advised investigators to seek clarification from attendees of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting held on May 21, 2003, where the project was discussed.

He added that former President Olusegun Obasanjo later responded through a questionnaire submitted by lawyers representing the federal government, a document already admitted as evidence.

Under further questioning, the witness acknowledged that the questionnaire bore no names of its authors and was neither signed nor dated.

On the financial allegations, Babangida confirmed that the EFCC’s investigation found Agunloye received about N5.2 million roughly 16 years after leaving office.

He said the payment was traced to Sotirin, who claimed he acted on the instruction of his employer, Adesanya, and that the funds were meant to support Agunloye’s medical needs.

READ ALSO: FG slams fresh 12-count charge on Ozekhome over alleged forged passport

According to the witness, both Sotirin and Agunloye told investigators the money was for medical purposes, including a surgery involving the former minister’s son.

However, Babangida said a review of Agunloye’s bank statement did not support that explanation. He also disclosed that the EFCC did not invite Agunloye’s son for questioning, citing the defendant’s claim that the son resides in the United States.

The witness admitted that investigators could not verify whether the surgery took place.

He further stated that Agunloye transferred portions of the funds to several individuals, though he could not recall whether those recipients were medical personnel.

Babangida confirmed that the commission did not invite the recipients of the funds to explain the transactions.

When asked whether Sotirin described the payment as gratification, the witness said he did not, noting only that he acted on his employer’s instruction.

Babangida also told the court he could not recall whether the Bureau of Public Procurement had been established at the time the contract was awarded in 2003, or if it came into existence in 2007, four years later.