Court orders EFCC to pay documents certification fee in ex-aviation minister trial

Court orders EFCC to pay documents certification fee in ex-aviation minister trial

An FCT High Court on Monday ordered the Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to pay the required fees for certification of some documents it tendered as exhibit in trial of former Aviation Minister, Hadi Sirika, and three others.

Sirika is charged alongside, his daughter, Fatima, son-in-law, Jalal Sule Hamma and Al-Buraq Investment Limited.

Sirika, according to EFCC, abused his office as minister by conferring unfair advantage on Al Buraq Global Investment Limited, Fatima amd Hamma, by using his position to influence the award to them, the contract for the Apron Extension at Katsina Airport for the sum of N1,498,300,750.

The EFCC said the offence contravened the provisions of Sections 12 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 and Section 17 (b) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (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 sections.

They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge.

At the resumed hearing, the prosecution tendered some documents through the ninth prosecution witness (PW9), Mathias Maiyaki Vyonku, a retired General Manager, Administration and Human Resources with the Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority.

READ ALSO:

• 2025 UTME results: Obi seeks overhaul of Nigeria’s education sector
• Senate resumes to begin work on Tax Reform Bills, Rivers crisis
• Condemnation over NELFUND loans disbursed to graduates

Counsel for Hamma and Al-Buraq Global Investment Limited, Sunusi Musa (SAN) and Michael Numan (SAN), respectively, objected to the admissibility of some of the documents.

This was on the grounds that the PW9 mentioned Nigerian Midstream and Upstream while the one of the document, the prosecuting counsel, Oluwaleke Atolagbe, tendered was that of Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC).

They further argued that the prosecution did not paid the required fees for the certification of another document which certified true copy was part of the documents tendered in compliance with the provision of the Evidence Act.

They, therefore, urged the court to reject the documents.

Responding , Atolagbe argued that the defence counsel did not object to the admissibility of the covering letter that has the documents attached to.