An Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) witness has admitted that former Minister of Aviation, Hadi Abubakar Sirika, did not sign documents relating to a disputed ₦599 million consultancy contract. The witness, Christopher Odifin, made the admission during cross-examination at the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja. His testimony examined the documentary evidence linking the former minister to the contract award.
The admission came on Thursday during proceedings before Justice Sylvanus Oriji. Former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Kanu Agabi, SAN, conducted the cross-examination on behalf of Sirika. Odifin also acknowledged that the contract documents did not, on their face, establish Sirika’s direct involvement in the award process.
Witness Examines Sirika’s Role in the Contract
During cross-examination, the EFCC witness confirmed that Sirika did not sign the letter awarding the disputed consultancy contract. He also admitted that the former minister was not a member of the Ministerial Tenders Board responsible for the award. Furthermore, Odifin acknowledged that the documents did not indicate that the Director of Procurement lacked authority to sign the relevant papers.
However, the prosecution maintained that its case involved an alleged oral instruction concerning the contract. Odifin said the contract exceeded the applicable approval threshold and alleged that it was awarded to an associate of the former minister. The court has yet to determine the merits of these allegations.
Sirika is standing trial alongside his daughter, Fatima, his son-in-law, Hamma Jalal Sule, and Al Buraq Global Investment Limited. The defendants face allegations involving abuse of office and contract fraud totalling approximately ₦2.8 billion. They have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Witness Questions Electronic Evidence in EFCC Trial
The cross-examination also addressed electronic evidence allegedly extracted from the mobile telephone of former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Aviation, Abel Enitan. Odifin admitted that the telephone from which investigators reportedly obtained a voice recording had not been produced before the court. He further acknowledged that he had no evidence showing the recording was served on the telephone’s owner.
On the investigation, the witness confirmed that the EFCC completed its investigation by April 26, 2024, when charges were filed. However, he said he was unaware of the circumstances surrounding additional proofs of evidence submitted after proceedings began. He also could not explain the increase in prosecution witnesses from 11 in the initial proof of evidence to 20.
During further cross-examination by Efut Okoi, counsel to the second defendant, Odifin confirmed that Fatima was not the Chief Executive Officer of Al Buraq Global Investment Limited. The company is linked to a separate contract for expanding the apron at Katsina Airport, valued at ₦1,498,300,750.
Odifin also said another investigator, Bello Gideon, prepared the digital forensic report relied upon in filing the charges. He confirmed that he did not personally obtain extrajudicial statements from Nigerian Air Force officers, relevant airport authorities or the Katsina State Government concerning the Katsina Airport project.
EFCC Allegations Remain Before the Court
The EFCC alleges that Sirika used his ministerial position to confer an unfair advantage on Al Buraq Global Investment Limited, a company allegedly associated with his family. The prosecution cited 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 applicable in the FCT.
The witness’s admissions concerning signatures, procurement authority and electronic evidence do not automatically invalidate the prosecution’s case. The court must assess the evidence and determine whether the prosecution has established the charges against the defendants.
Justice Oriji adjourned the matter until October 20 and 28, 2026, for the continuation of Odifin’s cross-examination. Proceedings will continue with scrutiny of the documentary evidence, electronic records and alleged involvement of the defendants in the disputed contracts.a
