Proceedings in the trial of former Aviation Minister Hadi Sirika continued on Wednesday as an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) investigator admitted under cross-examination that key procurement documents contained no indication that the first defendant induced the Ministry’s Permanent Secretary to seek approval from the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP).
The proceedings took place before Justice Sylvanus C. Oriji in Court 2 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, where EFCC is prosecuting Sirika, the first defendant and others on charges arising from the Air Nigeria project. The matter resumed with the continued cross-examination of the commission’s investigating officer, Chris Udofia, by defence counsel, Kanu Agabi, SAN.
Udofia’s testimony centred on procurement documents tendered by the prosecution as exhibits.
First Defendant and Procurement Documents
The defence’s cross-examination focused on establishing that Exhibits 9 and 11 were official correspondence exchanged between the Permanent Secretary and the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), with no direct involvement of the first defendant apparent on the face of either document.
Agabi directed the witness to Exhibit 9, a letter requesting the Bureau of Public Procurement’s “No Objection” to adopt the selective tendering method for critical capital projects in the Ministry of Aviation.
Udofia confirmed that the request was signed by the then Permanent Secretary of the ministry, Abel Olumuyiwa Enitan.
Asked whether anything on the face of the document indicated that the first defendant induced the Permanent Secretary to make the request, the witness replied: “There is nothing of such nature.”
The defence then shifted attention to Exhibit 11, the Bureau of Public Procurement’s response to the ministry’s request.
Udofia confirmed that the letter was addressed to the Permanent Secretary and was issued in response to the ministry’s application for approval.
When asked whether Exhibit 11 contained anything implicating the first defendant or referring to the former minister personally, the witness answered that there was no reference to the Minister, although the document referred to the Ministry.
The investigator also agreed that it was the Permanent Secretary who was expected to act on the Bureau’s response. He further confirmed that the official carried out the expected action on behalf of the ministry.
Agabi then asked whether investigators found anything wrong with the Permanent Secretary’s action on Exhibit 11. Udofia replied, “No, my Lord.”
By drawing the witness’s attention to both exhibits, defence counsel sought to demonstrate that the procurement process was initiated and processed through the statutory accounting officer of the ministry rather than the minister.
However, under further questioning, the witness maintained that the consultancy contract should not have been awarded to the company in the first place.
The defence subsequently questioned why the then Permanent Secretary was not charged along the first defendant if investigators believed there had been wrongdoing during the procurement process.
Responding, Udofia insisted that deciding who should be prosecuted was outside his responsibilities as an investigator. He repeatedly told the court that charging suspects was “not my duty.”
The cross-examination became tense when the defence pressed the witness on why the Permanent Secretary had not been arraigned despite his findings.
At one point, the trial judge cautioned counsel against prompting the witness from the back of the courtroom. The judge directed that the witness should answer questions independently before proceedings continued.
Background
The EFCC alleges that Sirika conceived the Nigeria Air project to deceive Nigerians. However, the former minister has denied the allegation.
According to the defence, the national carrier initiative predated Sirika’s appointment as Aviation Minister. Counsel argues that the project originated from a Presidential Committee established by former President Muhammadu Buhari before ministers were appointed.
The defence also maintains that the project was subsequently handled under Nigeria’s Public-Private Partnership framework. It argues that the procurement process was supervised by the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission and other statutory agencies rather than the minister.
In addition, the defence contends that under the Public Procurement Act 2007, procurement decisions fall within the responsibilities of the Permanent Secretary and the Ministerial Tenders Board. It argues that a minister is not a member of the Tenders Board and has no statutory role in awarding contracts.
Counsel further maintains that Nigeria Air was later incorporated as an independent company with its own board and management after investors emerged through the procurement process.
The defence also argues that the May 2023 Nigeria Air static display was organised by the airline’s management and investor consortium as a marketing exercise. It maintains that neither the Ministry of Aviation nor the first defendant organised the event.
The matter was adjourned for the continuation of hearing July 9, 2026.
