Nigeria: Sirika Trial – EFCC Witness Says Katsina Airport Contracts Were Separate Projects
A prosecution witness in the trial of former Minister of Aviation, Senator Hadi Abubakar Sirika, and three others has told the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) that the contracts for the terminal building and apron expansion at Katsina Airport were separate projects.
The testimony by Engineer Isaiah Ganiyu Yesufu, Director of Certification, Compliance and Monitoring at the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), contradicted his earlier position that the two contracts constituted a single project.
Yesufu, who testified as the third prosecution witness, made the clarification while being cross-examined by Michael Numa, SAN, counsel to Enginos Nigeria Limited and Al-Buraq Limited.
He told Justice Saiman Belgore that the two projects had different budgetary codes and were separately appropriated for.
Sirika, who served under the late President Muhammadu Buhari, is standing trial alongside his younger brother, Ahmad Abubakar Sirika, and two companies, Al-Buraq Limited and Enginos Nigeria Limited. The latter is said to be owned by the former minister’s brother.
The defendants are facing a 10-count charge bordering on alleged abuse of office, criminal breach of trust and using their positions for gratification.
The EFCC accused the former minister of using his position to award contracts worth about N19.4 billion to his younger brother.
He was also accused of conferring an unfair advantage on Enginos Nigeria Limited by influencing the award of a N1,345,586,500 contract for the construction of a terminal building at Katsina Airport.
The commission further alleged that Sirika influenced the award of a N3,811,497,685 contract for the establishment of a fire truck maintenance and refurbishment centre at the airport, among other allegations.
The prosecution said the alleged offences were committed in Abuja between August 2022 and May 2023 and contravened Sections 12 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000; Section 17(b) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004; and Section 315 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532, Laws of the Federal Capital Territory.
The defendants, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against them by the EFCC on behalf of the Federal Government.
At the resumed hearing, Yesufu initially maintained under cross-examination that the terminal building and apron expansion contracts were a single project.
He said, “Project of terminal building and apron expansion (at the Katsina airport) are one project. The contract for the apron expansion and terminal building are joint project.”
When asked to read from page five of Exhibit C1, a request for no objection submitted by the Aviation Ministry’s Ministerial Tenders Board to the BPP, Yesufu said the document formed the basis of his earlier position.
However, when Numa directed him to page 15 of the same exhibit, the witness acknowledged that the request was made by the ministry’s then Permanent Secretary, Abel Enitan, who chaired the Ministerial Tenders Board, rather than any of the defendants.
Confronted with other documents, Yesufu told the court that the budgetary code for the upgrade of Katsina Airport differed from the one for the terminal building contract.
Referring to Exhibit C at C7919, dated May 16, 2022, he said item 14, with serial number 597, carried a budgetary code for the airport upgrade, which did not correspond with the contract awarded under Exhibit A1.
“Exhibit A1 is the award of contract for construction of terminal building at the Katsina airport. The item does not include apron expansion as contained in Exhibit C,” he said.
The witness confirmed that the budgetary code for the construction and expansion of the airport apron was different from that of the terminal building.
“From the appropriation, the two projects are different (projects),” he told the court.
Yesufu further confirmed that the projects were not awarded to a single company, adding that he would be surprised if the Aviation Ministry’s Director of Procurement testified that the contracts were separate.
Responding to another question from Numa, the witness said the separation of terminal building and apron expansion contracts was not peculiar to Katsina Airport, adding that the same arrangement applied to projects at Port Harcourt Airport.
Although he said supervising projects was part of his duties, Yesufu admitted that he had never visited the Katsina Airport project.
“I never visited the Katsina airport. We were never mandated to visit it,” he said.
He also told the court that the BPP had not withheld approval for the construction of the terminal building and apron expansion projects and had received no complaints of breaches relating to them.
During cross-examination by counsel to the second defendant, Ahmad Sirika, the witness confirmed that the BPP issued a no-objection certificate for the projects after conducting due diligence on the documents submitted to it.
Justice Belgore adjourned the case until December 8 and 9 for possible re-examination of the witness by the prosecution and continuation of the trial.
By Leadership.
