Failure of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’ to provide documents on Tuesday stalled the trial of the former Aviation Minister, Hadi Sirika and others in an Abuja high Court .
Sirika is charged alongside his younger brother, Ahmad Abubakar and two companies, Al-Buraq Limited and Enginos Nigeria Limited, 10 counts bordering on abuse of office, criminal breach of trust, use of position for gratification.
The anti-graft commission alleged that the former minister awarded various contracts to his younger brother to the tune of about N19.4 billion.
The EFCC alleged that Sirika did confer unfair advantage upon Enginos Nigeria Limited whose alter ego is his biological brother, Ahmad, by using his position to influence the award of contract for the construction of a terminal building at Katsina Airport for the sum of N1,345,586,500.
The EFCC further alleged that the former minister used his position to influence the award of contract for the establishment of Fire Truck Maintenance and Refurbishment Centre at Katsina Airport for the sum of N3,811,497,685.
It also, among others, alleged that Ahmad and Enginos Nigeria Limited had possession of the aggregate sum of N2,337,840,674.16 which they knew indirectly represented the proceeds of criminal conducts of the former minister.
The offence, according to the EFCC, contravened the provisions of Sections 12 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
Also, Section 17(b) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 as well as Section 315 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532, Acts of the Federal Capital Territory and punishable under the same Acts.
The defendants, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge preferred against them.
Earlier, the EFCC witness, Ganiyu Yesufu, the Director of Compliance at the Bureau for Public Procurement (BPP) was to be cross examined by the defence.
Michael Numa, SAN who held the brief for Kanu Agabi, SAN, Sirika ‘ s counsel, and for himself as counsel for (4th def) Enginos Nigeria Limited was to cross examine the witness.
Numa requested for Exhibit C1 and annexture 2 which is the contract documents and approval letters but the prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN did not have it.
Numa told the court that the prosecution promised to produce annexture 2 at the last adjourned date.
Jacobs told the court that he does not have it and that Numa should proceed without that document.
Numa told the court that he can not proceed with the cross examination without the document he asked for because his questions will centre on the document.
After argument from parties, Jacobs prayed the court for adjournment to enable them get the document.
In a ruling, Justice Belgore asked the prosecution to try and make the document available to the defence to enable them continue with the cross examination of the witness.
He then adjourned until March 25, for prosecution to produce annexture 2 and continuation of cross examination of PW.
