A witness in the trial of a former Minister of Power and Steel, Dr Olu Agunloye on Wednesday told an FCT high court, Apo that he mistakenly stamped the wrong document.

The witness  Iliya Iyakwari, fifth prosecution witness (PW 5) was testifying in alleged $6 billion infractions in the contract award of Mambilla Hydroelectric Power project filed against the former minister.

Agunloye is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) ustice Jude Onwuegbuzie,

He is standing trial on an amended seven-count charge bordering on disobeying presidential directive, conspiracy, forgery and receiving gratification.

EFCC alleged that, sometimes in 2019, he  received gratification from Leno Adesanya of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited 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.

EFCC, among others, alleged that while serving as a minister, Agunloye conspired with Adesanya 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.

At the resumed hearing on the case, the defendant counsel Adeola Adedipe, SAN in continuation of his cross examination of the witness is applied to show the witness Exhibit EFCC 3K.

The exhibit is the extract from the FEC conclusions  of may 31, 2003 , the witness was asked to confirm if that is the extract forwarded to EFCC by the Federal ministry of power

The witness confirmed it and was asked if the extraction was uttered or tampered with.

The witness explained that it was what was forwarded to them (the witness) that they forwarded to the EFCC.

” So I wouldn’t know if it was tampered with.”

He told the court that copies of the extract was forwarded to them and he did not see the original.

When asked how old he is at the bar being a lawyer, he said 21 years.

When asked to explain what it means to have a document certified as a true copy?
He said it meant the photocopy of the original document.

He said that the letter written to EFCC from the ministry of power is an original document and that his department received it in June 2023.

When he was asked to tell the court why he had to certify the document in 2024 when is an original.

” 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 realised that the copy was not certified.

” In Jan 2024, a staff of the EFCC (Mr Babangida) brought back the document to my legal director. He reminded my director the error must be rectify.

He told the court that his director then gave him the document to go and certify.

He added that was  why in the face of the document,  the date it was certified is Jan 26, 2024 different from the date it was forwarded.

” 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.

The witness said the letter was addressed to the executive chairman of EFCC, then attention director of operations.

He admitted that his director instructed him orally to certify the document.

The witness said that he did not see the original FEC conclusions either at the time the extract was forwarded for certification.

He said it is possible that Mr Babangida who brought the letter to his department is a prosecution witness in this case since he works in the EFCC. .

Are you also aware that he is the IPO in this case, that advise the prosecution in this case? asked Adedipe

He said he is  not aware, and does know if the legal department tampered with the extract.

” Are you aware that Mr Babagida tendered before the court another FEC conclusions which is not the same in form and substance with the one you certified? Adedipe asked.

At this point,  Abba Mohammed SAN, prosecution counsel objected to the question saying that the witness can not be questioned in document that was not tendered by him. He cited some authorities.

Responding, Adedipe, said this objection is not rooted in law and the cases cited are not only narrow in expression in the manner to assist the court.

After listening to their submissions, Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie upheld the objection and adjourned until June 18 for continuation.