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.
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.
He said that it was the law that a document that has attachments must be admitted by the court as a whole.
He further argued that there is no need for government agencies to pay for certification of documents.
He said that the witness did not mention NUPRC but said upstream did not viatite the documents tendered.
After listening to parties, Justice Slyvanius in his ruling held that since government needs money, the Court cannot shut the doors against the prosecution for not paying the required fee for the certification.
He said the court would rather allow the anti graft agency to pay the fee and re-present the document.
He, therefore, ordered the prosecution to pay the required fee for the certification of the document and re-present same before the Court.
In view of this, the prosecution asked for an adjournment to enable him do the needful as directed by the Court.
This was not objected to by the defence team.
Oriji then adjourned the case until May 6 for continuation of the evidence of the PW9.
Earlier in his evidence, the PW9 informed the court that on March 14, 2024, EFCC wrote to the Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority, informing it of an ongoing investigation on the third defendant Jalal Sule Hamma and requested for information on him (Hamma).
Nyonku told the Court that as the General Manager, Administration and Human Resources, the Director-General of the Authority directed him to act accordingly and he then forwarded a letter to EFCC to confirm that Hamma was a staff member of the Authority.
According to him, he was employed in November, 2021 on a permanent and pensionable appointment. He was reconfirmed after two years.
The witness told the court that before the third defendant’s reconfirmation, he (Hamma) wrote to the authorities withdrawing his service, adding that the management subsequently approved the withdrawal of service.
The PW9 told the court that the documents the Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority forwarded to the EFCC included Hamma’s letter of appointment; letter of request for withdrawal of service; approval of withdrawal of service and all documents indicating that the defendant has paid one month in lieu of notice.
Atolagbe subsequently tendered the documents as exhibits in the case. (NAN)
