Abuja, January 21, 2026 — Nigeria’s long-running Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project controversy has exploded back into the national consciousness following explosive testimony by an EFCC prosecution witness at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court. The revelation, delivered under cross-examination, alleges that former President Olusegun Obasanjo personally instructed a secret ₦11 billion budget top-up for the Mambilla project in 2003—on top of an already approved ₦6 billion allocation.
The testimony, given by EFCC investigator Umar Babangida, has instantly shifted the public conversation. For years, the legal and political focus has rested squarely on Dr. Olu Agunloye, former Minister of Power, who is currently on trial over the alleged fraudulent award of a contract linked to the Mambilla project. But Babangida’s account—if sustained under judicial scrutiny—suggests presidential-level involvement that predates and potentially eclipses ministerial actions.
At the heart of the courtroom revelation is an alleged late-night, private meeting on May 20, 2003, between then-President Obasanjo and Dr. Agunloye. According to the EFCC witness, the instruction from the Presidency was blunt and urgent: increase the project’s budget by ₦11 billion immediately, raising the total to ₦17 billion, to “kick-start” a project already delayed by years of indecision.
The Mambilla Project: Nigeria’s Most Expensive Promise
The Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, designed to generate approximately 3,050 megawatts of electricity from the Mambilla Plateau in Taraba State, has been on Nigeria’s drawing board since the 1970s. If completed, it would be the largest hydropower project in Africa, capable of transforming Nigeria’s electricity supply and reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
Instead, it has become a case study in policy failure, elite decision-making, contractual disputes, and international arbitration. Over successive administrations, the project has consumed billions of naira and dollars in feasibility studies, negotiations, legal fees, and settlement risks—yet it has delivered zero megawatts to the national grid.
By the early 2000s, under President Obasanjo’s civilian administration, the project was revived as part of Nigeria’s broader power sector reform agenda. What today’s testimony re-opens is how decisions were made at the highest level during that revival.
Inside the Courtroom: What the EFCC Witness Said
During cross-examination, EFCC investigator Umar Babangida told the court that:
President Obasanjo summoned Dr. Olu Agunloye to a private meeting on May 20, 2003.
The meeting reportedly took place late at night, outside regular Federal Executive Council (FEC) proceedings.
The former President allegedly directed Agunloye to add ₦11 billion to the ₦6 billion already included in the 2003 budget for the Mambilla project.
The instruction, according to the witness, was presidential and immediate, aimed at forcing momentum into a stalled project.
If accepted by the court, this testimony establishes a critical point: the financial scale-up of Mambilla was not merely a ministerial initiative but a presidential directive.
This is significant because budgetary increases of that magnitude typically require legislative approval, detailed documentation, and formal FEC deliberation. The testimony has therefore ignited fresh debate about process, accountability, and constitutional compliance during that period.
Agunloye on Trial—but Was He Acting Alone?
Dr. Olu Agunloye currently faces prosecution over allegations connected to the award of a contract reportedly valued at about $6 billion, linked to Sunrise Power and Transmission Company. The EFCC alleges that the contract was awarded without due process and in violation of procurement rules.
However, previous court proceedings have already revealed uncomfortable details:
That contractual discussions with Sunrise Power pre-dated Agunloye’s full assumption of office.
That key terms—including government equity participation—were allegedly approved at presidential level.
That several critical decisions occurred outside formal Federal Executive Council approvals.
The new ₦11 billion budget top-up allegation deepens this narrative. It suggests that Agunloye may have been implementing presidential instructions rather than acting independently—a distinction with enormous legal and moral implications.
This does not automatically absolve the former minister. But it raises a fundamental question Nigerians are now asking loudly:
Why is the minister in the dock while the president who allegedly issued the directives remains politically untouched?
National Assembly Approval: The ₦11 Billion Question
Perhaps the most politically sensitive issue raised by the testimony is whether the additional ₦11 billion received proper legislative approval.
Under Nigeria’s Constitution, public funds cannot be lawfully expended without National Assembly appropriation. If the alleged top-up bypassed legislative scrutiny, it would point to systemic governance failure, not merely individual misconduct.
As of now:
No publicly available record clearly shows a stand-alone National Assembly approval for an ₦11 billion emergency expansion of the Mambilla budget in 2003.
There is no completed project on ground to justify the expenditure.
The paper trail—if it exists—has not yet been fully disclosed in court.
This opacity is precisely why the testimony has struck such a nerve.
Where Did the Money Go?
More than two decades later, Mambilla still stands unbuilt. No turbines. No dam. No power.
Yet Nigeria has faced:
International arbitration claims running into billions of dollars.
Reputational damage in global investment circles.
Lost opportunity costs in electricity generation, industrial growth, and employment.
The ₦11 billion question therefore becomes symbolic of a larger tragedy: how Nigeria repeatedly mobilizes huge resources for transformational projects that never materialize.
Public Reaction: OBJ Back in the Spotlight
Within hours of the courtroom revelation, social media platforms and political circles erupted. Hashtags referencing Obasanjo, Mambilla, and EFCC testimony began trending, with Nigerians demanding:
Full disclosure of all presidential directives related to the project.
A broader investigation beyond ministerial scapegoats.
Clarity on how executive power was exercised in the early years of the Fourth Republic.
For many Nigerians, the testimony reinforces a long-held suspicion: that Nigeria’s power sector failures are not accidental but deeply rooted in elite decision-making shielded from accountability.
A Test Case for Institutional Accountability
Beyond Obasanjo, Agunloye, or the EFCC, this case has become a test of Nigeria’s institutional maturity:
Can courts objectively interrogate actions taken at the highest level of power?
Will investigations stop at convenient political targets—or follow the evidence wherever it leads?
Can Nigeria finally extract lessons from the Mambilla disaster to prevent future mega-project failures?
The answers will shape public trust not just in the judiciary, but in governance itself.
Conclusion: Mambilla as Nigeria’s Power Sector Mirror
The alleged ₦11 billion presidential directive is more than a courtroom bombshell. It is a mirror reflecting Nigeria’s long struggle with transparency, accountability, and execution in public infrastructure.
Whether or not the court ultimately upholds the EFCC witness’s claims, one reality is undeniable: the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project has failed Nigeria—not because of lack of potential, but because of how power, money, and decisions were handled.
As the trial continues, Nigerians are no longer satisfied with partial truths. The demand is clear:
If the project failed at the top, accountability must also rise to the top.
One way or another, the Mambilla case may finally force Nigeria to confront a question it has avoided for decades: who truly bears responsibility when national dreams collapse under the weight of unchecked power?
0 Comments