EFCC: Hadi Sirika Katsina Airport Contracts Separate, Witness Says

• Former Aviation Minister Hadi Sirika is on trial with three others for alleged corruption involving Katsina Airport contracts.
• An EFCC witness from the BPP initially stated that Katsina Airport terminal building and apron expansion were one project but later clarified they were separate.
• The witness confirmed the projects had different budgetary codes and were separately appropriated.
• Sirika faces 10 counts, including abuse of office, for allegedly awarding N19.4 billion in contracts to his brother's companies.
• Specific contracts include N1.34 billion for a terminal building and N3.81 billion for a fire truck center at Katsina Airport.

This detailed examination of budgetary allocations and project documentation is critical for the prosecution to establish the nature of the contracts and for the defense to challenge any claims of contract splitting or improper award.

A pivotal moment unfolded in the corruption trial of former Aviation Minister, Hadi Abubakar Sirika, who previously served as a Senator, and three co-defendants before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Engineer Isaiah Ganiyu Yesufu, who serves as the Director of Certification, Compliance and Monitoring at the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), provided crucial testimony as the third prosecution witness. His evidence centered on the nature of contracts related to the Katsina Airport, specifically those for the terminal building and the apron expansion.

During cross-examination by Michael Numa, SAN, representing Enginos Nigeria Limited and Al-Buraq Limited, Engineer Yesufu clarified his earlier stance. Initially, he had maintained that the terminal building and apron expansion at Katsina Airport constituted a single, unified project. However, under further questioning and review of documentary evidence, the BPP official confirmed that these were, in fact, distinct and separate projects. This significant shift in testimony underscores the detailed scrutiny applied to public procurement processes in the ongoing legal proceedings.

Hadi Abubakar Sirika, who held the Aviation portfolio under the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, is facing a comprehensive 10-count charge. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has accused him, alongside his younger brother, Ahmad Abubakar Sirika, and two corporate entities, Al-Buraq Limited and Enginos Nigeria Limited, of serious offenses. These charges include alleged abuse of office, criminal breach of trust, and leveraging their positions for personal gratification. Enginos Nigeria Limited is reportedly owned by the former minister's brother, linking the alleged beneficiaries directly to the accused.

The prosecution specifically alleges that the former minister utilized his official capacity to award contracts totaling approximately N19.4 billion to his sibling. Among these, a contract valued at N1,345,586,500 was reportedly influenced for Enginos Nigeria Limited, designated for the construction of a terminal building at Katsina Airport. Furthermore, the EFCC claims Sirika influenced the award of another contract, amounting to N3,811,497,685, for the establishment of a fire truck maintenance and refurbishment centre at the same airport. These alleged infractions are said to have occurred in Abuja between August 2022 and May 2023, though all defendants have entered pleas of not guilty.

The charges brought by the EFCC against Hadi Sirika and his co-defendants invoke several key pieces of legislation. These include 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 legal framework highlights the gravity of the allegations, which broadly cover corruption and financial malfeasance in public office.

The BPP witness's revised testimony holds considerable weight in this context. Engineer Yesufu clarified that the Katsina Airport terminal building and apron expansion projects possessed distinct budgetary codes and were subject to separate appropriations. He referenced Exhibit C at C7919, dated May 16, 2022, noting that item 14, serial number 597, carried a budgetary code for general airport upgrade that did not align with the specific terminal building contract awarded under Exhibit A1. Moreover, Exhibit A1, which pertained to the terminal building construction, did not encompass the apron expansion detailed in Exhibit C. The witness further confirmed that the budgetary code for the apron expansion was separate from that of the terminal building, concluding that "From the appropriation, the two projects are different." He also confirmed that these projects were not awarded to a single entity. This detailed examination of budgetary allocations and project documentation is critical for the prosecution to establish the nature of the contracts and for the defense to challenge any claims of contract splitting or improper award. It was also noted that the request for no objection, Exhibit C1, was initiated by the then Permanent Secretary, Abel Enitan, who chaired the Ministerial Tenders Board, rather than any of the accused.

This testimony underscores the critical importance of scrutinizing contract documentation and budgetary allocations in corruption cases. Lawyers involved in public procurement or anti-corruption litigation should note how detailed evidence of project separation can influence the prosecution's ability to prove allegations of contract splitting or abuse of office.

Source: Original reporting via court proceedings