An investigator with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Umar Hussein Babangida, on Wednesday, told the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) that a former Minister of Power, Dr Olu Agunloye, claimed in his extrajudicial statement to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) that the extract from the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting of May 21, 2003 was altered and doctored.
This is as the witness admitted when confronted with the extracts of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting of May 21, 2003, obtained from the Federal Ministry of Power and the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF), which show some discrepancies.
Babangida, an Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), said this during his continued cross-examination by counsel for Agunloye, Adeola Adedipe SAN, at the resumed proceedings in the ongoing trial of the former minister before the court.
Agunloye is being prosecuted by EFCC, on behalf of the Federal Government, on an amended seven-count charge bordering on disobeying presidential directive, conspiracy, forgery and receiving gratification before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, sitting at Apo, Abuja.
He was alleged to have, sometimes in 2019, received gratification from Adesanya to the tune of N5.212million through Jide Abiodun Sotirin through his (Agunloye’s) Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) account, for conveying the Federal Government’s approval for the construction of the Mambila Hydroelectric Power Station.
ALSO READ: Mambilla Project: Agunloye kept govt stake within approved 25%, EFCC witness tells Court
EFCC, among others, alleged that while serving as a minister, Agunloye conspired with Leno Adesayan of SPTCL to forge a letter titled “Construction of 3,960MW Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Station on a build, operate and transfer” basis.
He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against him.
According to Babangida, who is the third prosecution witness (PW3) in the matter, EFCC wrote to both the Federal Ministry of Power and the OSGF to request the extract of the minutes of the FEC meeting of May 21, 2003, and both obliged the commission with the said extract.
He, however, added that in the course of investigation, the defendant stated in his extrajudicial statement to EFCC that the extract was altered and doctored.
“I recalled that he (Agunloye) claimed that the extract was altered. That claim is not correct,” he told the court.
Asked if he investigated the claim, the PW3 said he did, but there was no documentary report to that effect.
He added, “We compared the response from the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and that of the Ministry of Power and discovered that the content of the minutes of the meeting of the Federal Executive Council was the same.”
When shown Exhibits EFCC 3D and EFCC 3K, the features in the referenced pages were apparently different, confirming the alleged alteration. The witness said EFCC 3D was the response to EFCC’s request from the OSGF, while EFCC 3K was the response from the Federal Ministry of Power.
He was then asked to read to the court the features on Page 8 of EFCC 3K Babangida told the court that, “I can see the title serial number 14: ‘Construction of 3,960megawatts Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, on built, operate and transfer basis.
“I can see paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 and an inscription, ‘Executive Council conclusions’,” adding that there was a certified true copy stamp of the Federal Ministry of Power signed by one Iliya Iykakhan, Assistant Director, Legal and dated January 26, 2024 and the page was not numbered.
Asked to read from page 4 of EFCC 3D, Babangida told the court that the exhibit contained paragraph 14, adding that from the two documents, EFCC 3K did not contain page 19, and it did not contain the phrase “16th meeting”.
According to PW3, “Exhibit EFCC 3D page 4, he (Adedipe) referred me to contains ’16th meeting’, while Exhibit EFCC 3K page 8 that he also referred me to does not contain ’16th meeting’.
“The Council took note” is contained in Exhibit EFCC 3D page 4, while it is not in Exhibit EFCC 3K page 8.”
Babangida further told the court that page 4 of Exhibit EFCC 3D had Paragraph 13, which further had sub paragraphs 1 – 5, but Exhibit EFCC 3K did not have such.
He said the opening phrase on page 10 of Exhibit EFCC 3K was “16th meeting” and the closing phrase on the page was “Federal Government”, while the opening phrase on page 6 of Exhibit EFCC 3D was “16th meeting” and the closing phrase was “Nigerian Ports Authority”.
According to the PW3, “Nigerian Ports Authority” was contained in Paragraph 15 of EFCC 3D, titled, “An update on the dredging project already being undertaken by the National Inland Waterways Authority and the Nigerian Ports Authority”.
He added that Paragraph 15 in EFCC 3D has two sub-paragraphs, but none of these was contained on page 1 of EFCC 3K.
The implication of the disparity is that the extract of the FEC meeting from the Federal Ministry of Power and OSGF may have different features. This may go to the bedrock of the prosecution’s case, which is anchored on the conclusion of the FEC meeting of May 21, 2003.
There were arguments between Adeola Adedipe SAN and the prosecuting counsel, Abba Mohammed SAN, when the defence counsel said the witness could not give explanation on the contrasting documents since he (PW3) was not the maker, arguing that explanations on the contrast documents could only be given by the Federal Ministry of Power or OSGF.
Citing provisions of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Section 246 of the Evidence Act, the prosecutor urged the court, in the interest of justice, to allow the witness to explain the contradictions in the documents.
Adedipe, however, told the court that Section 36 of the Constitution did not avail the witness in terms of denial of a fair hearing as the PW3 was not a party to the criminal charge, adding that the prosecutor has a right of re-examination under Section 214 (3) and 215 ( 3) of the Evidence Act.
He also argued that Section 246 of the Evidence Act did not apply to the instant matter, as the condition to activate it was to clear ambiguities or clarify obscure points, which is not the case in the present situation.
After listening to both sides on this, Justice Onwuegbuzie adjourned to Monday, March 16, to rule on whether the court can allow the PW3 to give an explanation on the discrepancies in the two documents.
