The Katsina Airport Apron Contract investigation has come under renewed scrutiny following questions about missing investigative statements and the role of former Permanent Secretary Abel Enitan in the procurement process.
During cross-examination at the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja, EFCC investigator and prosecution witness Christopher Odofin faced questions about the investigation into the ₦1.498 billion apron contract. The proceedings also highlighted an unresolved accountability question: why is Enitan, who chaired the ministry’s Ministerial Tenders Board when the apron contract was awarded, not among the four defendants standing trial?
Apron Contract: Questions Over Missing Evidence
The Katsina Airport apron contract was awarded to Al Buraq Global Investment Limited. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission alleges that former Aviation Minister Hadi Sirika used his position to confer an unfair advantage on the company, which is linked to his daughter, Fatima Sirika, and son-in-law, Jalal Hamma Sule.
The defendants have pleaded not guilty. The prosecution alleges that the contract formed part of a wider scheme involving aviation contracts awarded to companies connected to Sirika’s family.
During cross-examination, defence counsel questioned Odofin about statements obtained from officials of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC). Fatima Sirika was reportedly employed by the company, prompting questions about whether investigators interviewed its officials or obtained relevant extrajudicial statements.
Counsel also asked whether NNPC Limited had petitioned the EFCC over Fatima’s employment. Asked whether he received such a petition, Odofin answered, “No, my Lord.”
Odofin confirmed that he had not obtained statements from their officers. He also testified that no land had been allocated for the expansion and that there was no contract for the apron expansion involving Al Buraq, according to the account of the proceedings.
These exchanges raise questions about the scope of the investigation and the evidence used to establish the circumstances surrounding the award. However, the absence of particular statements does not, by itself, establish that the prosecution’s case is unsustainable.
Why Is Former Permanent Secretary Abel Enitan Not on Trial?
Enitan, now Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, was Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Aviation and chairman of its Ministerial Tenders Board when the contract was awarded.
Odofin told the court that Sirika was not a member of the board. However, the witness alleged that the former minister imposed Al Buraq on the board.
“The first defendant imposed the company. They were forced to do the bidding of the first defendant,” the witness had said, according to Premium Times.
Enitan’s position does not automatically establish criminal liability. Nevertheless, his role raises legitimate questions about whether investigators examined his conduct, what evidence they gathered and why he was not charged alongside the four defendants.
Procurement Process and Alleged Re-award
The defence also questioned Odofin about the original project site and whether difficulties involving the land affected implementation. The witness’s response, as captured in the recording, was unclear.
Counsel further asked whether the ministry withdrew the original contract and re-awarded it to the same defendant on March 17, 2025. Odofin said he was not aware of the alleged re-award.
The questions follow earlier testimony in July 2025 concerning the separation of the Katsina Airport terminal building and apron expansion projects. The EFCC witness reportedly told the court that procurement records initially presented the apron contract projects as one contract before they were divided between Enginos Nigeria Limited and Al Buraq Global Investment Limited.
The prosecution alleged that the division bypassed regulatory scrutiny. The case therefore places ministerial authority, procurement compliance and the responsibilities of officials overseeing government contracts under scrutiny.
Court Adjourns Cross-examination to October 28
At the end of the proceedings, one of the defence counsels requested an adjournment to continue and conclude the cross-examination of Odofin, identified as prosecution witness five (PW5).
Counsel told the court that he had hoped to narrow the remaining questions to issues relevant to the case. He subsequently requested October 28, 2026, to complete the examination.
The court granted the request and scheduled the matter to resume on that date. The witness then stepped down from the witness box.
The continuation will provide the defence another opportunity to test the investigator’s evidence concerning the aproncontract award, the Ministerial Tenders Board and the investigation into officials involved in the procurement process.
Ultimately, the central issue is whether the evidence establishes individual responsibility for the alleged irregularities. Until the court determines the charges, all defendants retain the presumption of innocence.
