The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has asserted that it has powers based on judicial precedents to prosecute ex-Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye, over alleged $6 billion Mambilla hydroelectric power plant.
EFCC is prosecuting Agunloye, who served as a minister in the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, on infractions regarding the Mambilla power plant.
The suit, marked FCT/HC/CR/617/22, is before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of an FCT High Court Apo, Abuja,
The former minister was charged with a seven-count charge bordering on forgery, disobedience of presidential order and corruption.
He was alleged to have , among others, on May 22, 2003 awarded a contract titled “Construction of 3,960 megawatt Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Station on build, operate and transfer basis to Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited without any budgetary provision, approval and cash backing.
EFCC also alleged that it traced some suspicious payments made by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited to the former minister’s accounts.
Agunloye, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge preferred against him.
The former minister had, filed a preliminary motion on notice, with the number M/3736/2024, filed on February 8, 2024.
His counsel, Adeola Adedipe SAN, in the motion argued that the anti-corruption commission lacks both investigative and prosecutorial powers to prosecute him on the current charge before the court.
He further argued that the alleged offences he committed were based on his activities as a public officer, among other allegations, which did not constitute financial crimes.
Responding in its counter-affidavit, EFCC insisted that inspite of the former Minister’s submission, it has such powers to investigate and prosecute him.
The commission averred that the law donates the power to investigate and prosecute the former minister to it.
According to the commission, the case of Nwobike vs FRN relied on by the defence to claim that it (EFCC) has no such power ro prosecute him was quite different from the present case involving the former minister.
