Airport Contract: EFCC Witness Recants In Court, Says Katsina Airport Contracts Are Separate Projects

A witness of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the trial of the immediate past Minister of Aviation, Senator Hadi Abubakar Sirika, and three others before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has said the contracts were two separate contracts.

The latest evidence of the witness while under cross-examination is contrary to his earlier stance that the contracts for the terminal building and apron expansion of the Katsina airport were a single project

The witness, Engineer Isaiah Ganiyu Yesufu, the Director of Certification, Compliance and Monitoring with Bureau for Public Procurement (BPP), told Justice Saiman Belgore that the projects were appropriated for with different budgetary codes.

The former minister, who served in the administration of late President Muhammadu Buhari, is being tried before the court by the EFCC, alongside his younger brother, Ahmad Abubakar Sirika and two companies, Al-Buraq Limited and Enginos Nigeria Limited.

The. Company is said to be owned by the former minister’s brother.

The defendants are facing a 10-count charge bordering on abuse of office, criminal breach of trust and use of position for gratification.

The former minister was accused of using his position to award various contracts to his younger brother to the tune of about N19.4 billion.

He was further accused of conferring an  unfair advantage upon Enginos Nigeria Limitedby 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.

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, among other allegations.

According to the prosecution, the offences, allegedly committed in Abuja between August, 2022 and May, 2023, contravene provisions of Sections 12 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, 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, by EFCC on behalf of the Federal Government.

At yesterday’s resumed hearing in the case, while being cross examined by counsel for Enginos and Al Buraq, Michael Numa SAN, Yesufu initially maintained that the projects were a joint projects but recanted when shown documents tendered by the prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Jacobs SAN.

According to him, “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 asked to read from Page 5 of Exhibit C1, which is the request for no objection by the Aviation Ministry’s ministerial tenders board to the BPP, Yesufu said the document was the basis upon which he said the contracts were one.

However,when asked by Numa to read from Page 15 of the same document, the PW3 said the request was not made by any of the defendants, but by the then permanent secretary in the ministry, Mr Abel Enitan, who was the chairman of the ministry’s ministerial renders board.

Confronted with other documents, the witness told the court, “Exhibit C at C7919, dated 16th May, 2022, at Item 14 with serial number 597 as budgetary code is for upgrade of Katsina airport. It was not what was awarded in Exhibit A1.

“Exhibit A1 is the award of contract for construction of terminal building attheKatsina airport. The item dies bit include apron expansion as contained in Exhibit C.”

He confirmed to the court that the budgetary code for the construction and expansion of apron at the airport was different from the code of the terminal building.

Yesufu then told the court that, “From the appropriation, the two projects are different (projects). With an appropriation, the ministerial tenders board cannot make a request for the execution of the projects.”

He further told the court that the projects were not awarded to a single company, adding that he would be surprised that the aviation ministry’s Director of Procurement came to the court to testify that the projects were separate.

Answering another question after being shown another document by Numa, the PW3 confirmed to the court that the separation of terminal building and apron expansion was not limited to the Katsina airport as same was done at the Port Harcourt airport.

While saying that one of his schedule of duty is to supervise projects, the prosecution witness said he did not visit the Katsina airport project, saying, “I never visited the Katsina airport. We were never mandated to visit it.”

He then told the court that the BPP never withheld approval for the construction of the terminal building and apron expansion at the Katsina airport, adding that the Bureau did not receive any complaints of any breach regarding the projects.

While being cross examined by counsel for the second defendant, Ahmad Sirika Yesufu said the BPP issued a no-objection for the construction of the terminal building and apron expansion projects.

He added that BPP carried out due diligence before issuing approval for the contracts based on documents submitted to it.

Meanwhile, Justice Belgore has adjourned the case to December 8 and 9 for possible re-examination if the PW3 by the prosecutor and continuation of hearing.