MAMBILLA POWER PROJECT FRAUD TRIAL: Imoke Tells Court FEC Never Approved Contract Memo

• Former Power Minister’s testimony puts spotlight on disputed $6 billion hydroelectric project as trial of Olu Agunloye continues

Former Minister of Power Liyel Imoke has told the Federal Capital Territory High Court that the Federal Executive Council (FEC) never approved the memorandum proposing the award of the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project contract to Sunrise Power & Transmission Company.

Imoke reportedly gave the testimony on October 19, 2026, during the ongoing trial of his predecessor, Olu Agunloye, over allegations linked to the multibillion-dollar power project.

The testimony raises fresh questions about the approval process for the $6 billion Mambilla project, one of Nigeria’s major proposed hydropower developments, and the circumstances surrounding the disputed contract award.

The case is also linked to a broader investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) into allegations surrounding a $400 million arbitration claim against the Nigerian government.

According to the account of proceedings, Imoke’s testimony focused on whether the FEC had formally approved the memorandum relating to the award of the contract to Sunrise Power & Transmission Company.

The issue of approval is central to determining the circumstances under which the project was advanced and whether the relevant government procedures were followed.

The Mambilla project has remained a subject of controversy over contractual arrangements, alleged irregularities and the financial implications of the dispute for the Federal Government.

The wider EFCC investigation reportedly involves allegations that prominent individuals facilitated an arbitration claim against Nigeria. However, the allegations remain subject to the applicable legal process, and any individual’s culpability must be established by a competent court.

Imoke’s testimony is expected to form part of the evidence considered by the court as proceedings continue. The prosecution will still be required to establish the allegations against Agunloye in accordance with the law, while the defence retains the right to challenge the evidence presented.

The case carries significant implications for public accountability, government contracting and the management of major infrastructure projects, particularly where disputed agreements could expose public funds to substantial financial claims.

As the trial progresses, attention is likely to remain on the documentary evidence surrounding the contract approval process, the role of the relevant government institutions and the circumstances that gave rise to the dispute.

The court’s eventual determination will be critical in establishing the facts and legal responsibility in the case.