Saleh Mamman: Judge Frowns at Time-Wasting Antics of Defence Counsel

In a dramatic courtroom session that highlights the ongoing battle against corruption in Nigeria’s power sector, Justice Maryann Anenih of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday, January 20, 2026, expressed strong disapproval over what she described as time-wasting tactics by the defence counsel in the high-profile fraud trial of former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman.

Mamman, alongside seven co-defendants—Mustapha Abubakar Bida, Joseph Omotayo Adewunmi, Ben Nsikak, Stephen Ojo, Oladipo Adebowale, Michael Achua, and Ogunjobi Olusila—is facing a nine-count charge brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The charges border on conspiracy, false pretence, and intent to defraud, involving a staggering sum of N31,070,541,349.64 (Thirty-one Billion, Seventy Million, Five Hundred and Forty-one Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty-nine Naira, Sixty-four Kobo).
The case stems from allegations of massive financial impropriety during Mamman’s tenure as Minister of Power under the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari. Appointed in August 2019 and sacked in September 2021, Mamman is accused of conspiring with ministry officials and private entities to divert funds earmarked for critical infrastructure projects, including the Zungeru and Mambilla Hydro Electric Power initiatives. Earlier reports indicate that the EFCC initially arraigned Mamman in July 2024 on a 12-count charge involving N33.8 billion, but the charges appear to have been amended in subsequent proceedings.

In December 2025, a Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed Mamman’s no-case submission, ruling that he had a case to answer and ordering him to open his defence. This decision paved the way for the continuation of the trial, which has now seen further delays due to jurisdictional challenges raised by the defence.

During Tuesday’s hearing, tension arose when Temitayo Sonuyi, SAN, counsel to the second defendant, objected to the commencement of the trial. Sonuyi cited two applications filed on December 5 and 10, 2025, which challenged the appropriateness of the charges and the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter. He insisted that these issues be resolved before proceeding.

Justice Anenih, however, was unimpressed. She noted that the applications were not ripe for hearing, as she had not yet reviewed them fully, and the final processes were absent from the case file. In a stern rebuke, the judge stated: “I have listened to both parties, however, reading the prayers, I cannot take the prayers in the application when I have not seen or read it. It is not ripe for hearing at this point and the final process is not in the case file before me. If you want the application to be processed today, the proper thing has to be done earlier because I have to go through the application. I cannot come here and sit down and waste time for nothing to be done today. Counsel please let’s proceed with the trial. When we come during the next adjourned date I can deliver my ruling.”
Prosecution counsel Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, countered by informing the court that the second defendant had been served a counter-affidavit on January 6, 2026.

He urged the court to proceed with the trial, emphasizing that witnesses were present and ready, to avoid further wasting judicial time.In a surprising turn, Sonuyi sought leave to withdraw his response affidavit to the prosecution’s counter-affidavit, promising to “put his house in order.” Meanwhile, J.A. Egwaede, counsel to the sixth defendant, requested an adjournment, claiming he had only just been served the counter-affidavit in court and needed time to review and reply.

Weighing the arguments, Justice Anenih ruled in favour of an adjournment in the interest of justice, particularly to allow the sixth defendant adequate preparation. She emphasized the court’s obligation to address the jurisdictional application before full proceedings.

The matter has been adjourned to February 18, March 11, and March 25, 2026, for ruling and continuation of the trial.This case is part of a broader crackdown on corruption in Nigeria’s public sector, with Mamman’s trial listed among high-profile cases to watch in 2026. Analysts note that the alleged fraud has contributed to delays in key power projects, exacerbating the nation’s chronic electricity shortages.  As the trial progresses, Nigerians await justice in what could be a landmark verdict on accountability in governance.