Recent news reports the release on bail of former Minister Engr. Olusegun Agunloye, who was arrested and charged with seven counts related to fraudulent award of contract and official corruption. The charges against Agunloye relate to the $6 billion contract for the Mambilla hydropower project, which is being investigated by Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Commission (EFCC).
When he appeared in court, Agunloye was initially remanded in custody at Kuje Prison awaiting hearing and judgment on the bail application. However, during the bail hearing, the former minister’s lawyer, Adeola Adedipe, made a request to the court to grant bail to his client either out of personal acknowledgment or in favorable terms. Adedipe vigorously argued that Agunloye posed no flight risk and rejected the prosecution’s notion that this was “born out of confusion and a communication barrier.”
He also pleaded with the court not to require a public official to serve as surety for his client, saying the condition was not necessary. The lawyer also invoked section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), clarifying that once an accused is admitted to bail, even if he If he flees, the trial will continue and a conviction may be imposed if necessary.
However, the prosecution opposed the bail request by presenting its counter-arguments. Ultimately, Justice Onwuegbuzie delivered judgment in favor of granting bail to the accused. The judge granted bail of N50 million to Agunloye and ordered that he produce two sureties for the equivalent amount. The conditions imposed on guarantors are strict: they must be “respectable” and “affluent”, reside in the Federal Capital Region (FCT) and own assets worth N300 million, with a verifiable certificate of ownership . They must also submit copies of their ID cards and international passports to the court.
This bail decision marks a new stage in this complex and controversial case. The accused will now be able to fully defend himself and prepare his defense for the next stages of the trial. The final outcome of this case is generating public interest and attention because it raises important questions about transparency in the awarding of government contracts and the fight against corruption.