Mambilla Project: EFCC Challenges Court Order To Pay Agunloye ₦10 Million

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has appealed the judgment of a Federal Capital Territory High Court ordering it to pay a former Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye, ₦10 million in damages over a publication found to be defamatory.

In an 11-ground notice of appeal filed before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, the anti-graft agency asked the appellate court to set aside the entire judgment delivered on July 8, 2026, by Justice Peter Kekemeke.

The commission described the decision as erroneous in law and against the weight of evidence presented before the trial court.

It also urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss Agunloye’s suit in its entirety.

Naija News reports that Kekemeke had ruled that an EFCC publication titled, “EFCC arraigns Agunloye over $6bn fraud,” was false and defamatory because the former minister was not standing trial for fraud.

Consequently, the judge ordered the commission to pay Agunloye N10m in damages, retract the publication and publish an unreserved apology on its website and in two national newspapers.

The court also restrained the EFCC from publishing similar statements about the former minister.

The commission, however, argued in its appeal that the lower court failed to properly assess the evidence placed before it and wrongly held that Agunloye had established a case of libel.

EFCC Faults Evaluation Of Evidence

The EFCC contended that the trial judge overlooked important documentary evidence and the testimony of one of its witnesses, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Umar Hussain Babangida.

According to the commission, the evidence presented by Babangida supported the contents of the disputed publication.

“The totality of the credible oral and documentary evidence adduced before the lower court preponderated overwhelmingly in favour of the appellant,” the EFCC stated.

It added that if the judge had properly considered the evidence, particularly Exhibits A, B, D and E, as well as Babangida’s testimony, the former minister’s claims would have been dismissed.

The commission said, “Had the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence on record, particularly Exhibits A, B, D and E and the testimony of DW1, ACP Umar Hussain Babangida, it would have dismissed the respondent’s claim in its entirety.”

The anti-graft agency further argued that the trial court did not adequately consider all the legal elements required to establish libel.

It said the court ought to have examined whether the publication was false and whether it was protected by the legal defences of justification or privilege.

The commission maintained that Agunloye failed to prove the necessary ingredients of libel.

The EFCC insisted that the publication substantially reflected the circumstances surrounding Agunloye’s arraignment in connection with the Mambilla hydroelectric power project.

“The gist of the publication, namely that the respondent was arraigned by the appellant in connection with fraud surrounding the $6bn Mambilla Project, was substantially true,” the commission argued.

It faulted the trial judge for dismissing the report as a mere sensational headline and placing excessive emphasis on what it described as a semantic distinction.

According to the agency, the lower court wrongly focused on the difference between the estimated value of the Mambilla project and the specific offences contained in the criminal charge.

The EFCC maintained that the headline and accompanying report accurately conveyed the substance of the arraignment and the investigation surrounding the power project.

EFCC Claims Privilege, Fair Comment

The commission also argued that the publication was protected by the legal defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment.

It maintained that informing Nigerians about corruption investigations and prosecutions formed part of its statutory responsibilities.

The EFCC said the publication “was a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of the arraignment of the respondent conducted in open court.”

It argued that the trial judge erred by rejecting the defence on the grounds that the commission was an investigative agency and not a media organisation.

According to the EFCC, the fact that it is not a news organisation does not prevent it from informing the public about cases being prosecuted by the agency.

The commission also challenged the finding that it acted maliciously in publishing the report.

It argued that there was no evidence showing that the publication was motivated by spite, ill will or any improper purpose.

The EFCC said its investigating officer testified that the publication was drawn from official investigation records and proceedings conducted in open court.

It added that Agunloye did not present evidence capable of proving express malice against the agency.

Ex-minister’s Reputation Not Damaged – EFCC

On the issue of reputational damage, the EFCC argued that Agunloye failed to prove that the publication lowered his standing in the eyes of members of the public.

The commission noted that one of the former minister’s witnesses admitted that he continued to hold Agunloye in high regard even after reading the publication.

It also pointed out that Agunloye remained the National Secretary of the Social Democratic Party despite the report.

The EFCC argued that any injury to the former minister’s reputation arose from the criminal charges pending against him and not from the commission’s report of the court proceedings.

It consequently described the N10m damages awarded by the trial court as arbitrary, excessive and unsupported by evidence.

“The award is manifestly excessive and out of all proportion to the circumstances of the case, such as to warrant appellate interference,” the agency stated.

The commission maintained that the award was punitive and did not reflect any proven loss suffered by Agunloye.

The EFCC also faulted the orders directing it to apologise, retract the report and refrain from making further publications concerning Agunloye.

It argued that the injunction was vague and placed an unreasonable restriction on its statutory responsibility to inform Nigerians about its investigations and court cases.

The commission further submitted that compelling it to issue an apology amounted to forced speech, particularly when documentary evidence, in its view, established the substantial truth of the publication.

It said the orders could prevent the agency from providing legitimate updates about the ongoing criminal proceedings involving the former minister.

The anti-graft agency also argued that Agunloye’s civil action should not have been entertained while his criminal trial over the Mambilla project remained pending.

“The respondent’s civil action was premature, the criminal charge against him being yet to be concluded and judgment delivered thereon,” the commission said.

It added that the trial court’s findings in the defamation suit effectively determined issues still awaiting resolution before another High Court handling the criminal case.

The EFCC argued that allowing the civil judgment to stand could prejudice the pending criminal proceedings.

Among the reliefs sought, the commission asked the Court of Appeal to allow its appeal and set aside the lower court’s entire judgment.

It specifically asked the appellate court to overturn the declaration that the publication was defamatory, the N10m damages, the apology and retraction orders, as well as the perpetual injunction imposed against the commission.

The EFCC also urged the court to dismiss Agunloye’s suit in its entirety.