A prosecution witness within the trial of former Minister of Aviation, Senator Hadi Abubakar Sirika, and three others has informed the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) that the contracts for the terminal constructing and apron enlargement at Katsina Airport have been separate initiatives.
The testimony by Engineer Isaiah Ganiyu Yesufu, Director of Certification, Compliance and Monitoring on the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), contradicted his earlier place that the 2 contracts constituted a single challenge.
Yesufu, who testified because the third prosecution witness, made the clarification whereas being cross-examined by Michael Numa, SAN, counsel to Enginos Nigeria Limited and Al-Buraq Limited.
He informed Justice Saiman Belgore that the 2 initiatives had totally different budgetary codes and have been individually appropriated for.
Sirika, who served beneath the late President Muhammadu Buhari, is standing trial alongside his youthful brother, Ahmad Abubakar Sirika, and two firms, Al-Buraq Limited and Enginos Nigeria Limited. The latter is alleged to be owned by the previous minister’s brother.
The defendants are going through a 10-count cost bordering on alleged abuse of workplace, legal breach of belief and utilizing their positions for gratification.
The EFCC accused the previous minister of utilizing his place to award contracts price about N19.4 billion to his youthful brother.
He was additionally accused of conferring an unfair benefit on Enginos Nigeria Limited by influencing the award of a N1,345,586,500 contract for the development of a terminal constructing at Katsina Airport.
The fee additional alleged that Sirika influenced the award of a N3,811,497,685 contract for the institution of a hearth truck upkeep and refurbishment centre on the airport, amongst different allegations.
The prosecution mentioned the alleged offences have been dedicated in Abuja between August 2022 and May 2023 and contravened 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 defendants, nonetheless, pleaded not responsible to the fees introduced towards them by the EFCC on behalf of the Federal Government.
At the resumed listening to, Yesufu initially maintained beneath cross-examination that the terminal constructing and apron enlargement contracts have been a single challenge.
He mentioned, “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 web page 5 of Exhibit C1, a request for no objection submitted by the Aviation Ministry’s Ministerial Tenders Board to the BPP, Yesufu mentioned the doc fashioned the premise of his earlier place.
However, when Numa directed him to web page 15 of the identical exhibit, the witness acknowledged that the request was made by the ministry’s then Permanent Secretary, Abel Enitan, who chaired the Ministerial Tenders Board, fairly than any of the defendants.
Confronted with different paperwork, Yesufu informed the courtroom that the budgetary code for the improve of Katsina Airport differed from the one for the terminal constructing contract.
Referring to Exhibit C at C7919, dated May 16, 2022, he mentioned merchandise 14, with serial quantity 597, carried a budgetary code for the airport improve, which didn’t correspond with the contract awarded beneath Exhibit A1.
“Exhibit A1 is the award of contract for construction of terminal building at the Katsina airport. The item does not include apron expansion as contained in Exhibit C,” he mentioned.
The witness confirmed that the budgetary code for the development and enlargement of the airport apron was totally different from that of the terminal constructing.
“From the appropriation, the two projects are different (projects),” he informed the courtroom.
Yesufu additional confirmed that the initiatives weren’t awarded to a single firm, including that he can be stunned if the Aviation Ministry’s Director of Procurement testified that the contracts have been separate.
Responding to a different query from Numa, the witness mentioned the separation of terminal constructing and apron enlargement contracts was not peculiar to Katsina Airport, including that the identical association utilized to initiatives at Port Harcourt Airport.
Although he mentioned supervising initiatives was a part of his duties, Yesufu admitted that he had by no means visited the Katsina Airport challenge.
“I never visited the Katsina airport. We were never mandated to visit it,” he mentioned.
He additionally informed the courtroom that the BPP had not withheld approval for the development of the terminal constructing and apron enlargement initiatives and had acquired no complaints of breaches referring to them.
During cross-examination by counsel to the second defendant, Ahmad Sirika, the witness confirmed that the BPP issued a no-objection certificates for the initiatives after conducting due diligence on the paperwork submitted to it.
Justice Belgore adjourned the case till December 8 and 9 for potential re-examination of the witness by the prosecution and continuation of the trial.
