A witness of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) within the trial of the rapid previous Minister of Aviation, Senator Hadi Abubakar Sirika, and three others earlier than the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has stated the contracts had been two separate contracts.
The newest proof of the witness whereas below cross-examination is opposite to his earlier stance that the contracts for the terminal constructing and apron growth of the Katsina airport had been a single undertaking
The witness, Engineer Isaiah Ganiyu Yesufu, the Director of Certification, Compliance and Monitoring with Bureau for Public Procurement (BPP), informed Justice Saiman Belgore that the initiatives had been appropriated for with totally different budgetary codes.
The former minister, who served within the administration of late President Muhammadu Buhari, is being tried earlier than the court docket by the EFCC, alongside his youthful brother, Ahmad Abubakar Sirika and two firms, Al-Buraq Limited and Enginos Nigeria Limited.
The. Company is alleged to be owned by the previous minister’s brother.
The defendants are going through a 10-count cost bordering on abuse of workplace, prison breach of belief and use of place for gratification.
The former minister was accused of utilizing his place to award varied contracts to his youthful brother to the tune of about N19.4 billion.
He was additional accused of conferring an unfair benefit upon Enginos Nigeria Limitedby utilizing his place to affect the award of contract for the development of a terminal constructing at Katsina Airport for the sum of N1,345,586,500.
EFCC additional alleged that the previous minister used his place to affect the award of contract for the institution of Fire Truck Maintenance and Refurbishment Centre at Katsina Airport for the sum of N3,811,497,685, amongst different allegations.
According to the prosecution, the offences, allegedly dedicated in Abuja between August, 2022 and May, 2023, contravene provisions of Sections 12 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, Section 17(b) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 in addition to Section 315 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532, Acts of the Federal Capital Territory and punishable below the identical Acts.
The defendants, nonetheless, pleaded not responsible to the cost most popular towards them, by EFCC on behalf of the Federal Government.
At yesterday’s resumed listening to within the case, whereas being cross examined by counsel for Enginos and Al Buraq, Michael Numa SAN, Yesufu initially maintained that the initiatives had been a joint initiatives however recanted when proven paperwork tendered by the prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Jacobs SAN.
According to him, “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 requested to learn from Page 5 of Exhibit C1, which is the request for no objection by the Aviation Ministry’s ministerial tenders board to the BPP, Yesufu stated the doc was the premise upon which he stated the contracts had been one.
However,when requested by Numa to learn from Page 15 of the identical doc, the PW3 stated the request was not made by any of the defendants, however by the then everlasting secretary within the ministry, Mr Abel Enitan, who was the chairman of the ministry’s ministerial renders board.
Confronted with different paperwork, the witness informed the court docket, “Exhibit C at C7919, dated sixteenth May, 2022, at Item 14 with serial quantity 597 as budgetary code is for improve of Katsina airport. It was not what was awarded in Exhibit A1.
“Exhibit A1 is the award of contract for construction of terminal building attheKatsina airport. The item dies bit include apron expansion as contained in Exhibit C.”
He confirmed to the court docket that the budgetary code for the development and growth of apron on the airport was totally different from the code of the terminal constructing.
Yesufu then informed the court docket that, “From the appropriation, the two projects are different (projects). With an appropriation, the ministerial tenders board cannot make a request for the execution of the projects.”
He additional informed the court docket that the initiatives weren’t awarded to a single firm, including that he can be shocked that the aviation ministry’s Director of Procurement got here to the court docket to testify that the initiatives had been separate.
Answering one other query after being proven one other doc by Numa, the PW3 confirmed to the court docket that the separation of terminal constructing and apron growth was not restricted to the Katsina airport as identical was accomplished on the Port Harcourt airport.
While saying that one in every of his schedule of responsibility is to oversee initiatives, the prosecution witness stated he didn’t go to the Katsina airport undertaking, saying, “I never visited the Katsina airport. We were never mandated to visit it.”
He then informed the court docket that the BPP by no means withheld approval for the development of the terminal constructing and apron growth on the Katsina airport, including that the Bureau didn’t obtain any complaints of any breach relating to the initiatives.
While being cross examined by counsel for the second defendant, Ahmad Sirika Yesufu stated the BPP issued a no-objection for the development of the terminal constructing and apron growth initiatives.
He added that BPP carried out due diligence earlier than issuing approval for the contracts based mostly on paperwork submitted to it.
Meanwhile, Justice Belgore has adjourned the case to December 8 and 9 for attainable re-examination if the PW3 by the prosecutor and continuation of listening to.
We’ve bought the sting. Get real-time stories, breaking scoops, and unique angles delivered straight to your cellphone. Don’t accept stale information. Join LEADERSHIP NEWS on WhatsApp for twenty-four/7 updates →
