A prosecution witness within the trial of former Minister of Aviation, Senator Hadi Abubakar Sirika, and 3 others has informed the Prime Court docket of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) that the contracts for the terminal development and apron enlargement at Katsina Airport have been separate initiatives.
The testimony by way of Engineer Isaiah Ganiyu Yesufu, Director of Certification, Compliance and Tracking on the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), contradicted his previous place that the 2 contracts constituted a unmarried venture.
Yesufu, who testified because the 3rd prosecution witness, made the explanation whilst being cross-examined by way of Michael Numa, SAN, suggest to Enginos Nigeria Restricted and Al-Buraq Restricted.
He informed Justice Saiman Belgore that the 2 initiatives had other budgetary codes and have been one after the other appropriated for.
Sirika, who served underneath the past due President Muhammadu Buhari, is status trial along his more youthful brother, Ahmad Abubakar Sirika, and two corporations, Al-Buraq Restricted and Enginos Nigeria Restricted. The latter is alleged to be owned by way of the previous minister’s brother.
The defendants are dealing with a 10-count fee bordering on alleged abuse of administrative center, prison breach of agree with and the use of their positions for gratification.
The EFCC accused the previous minister of the use of his place to award contracts value about N19.4 billion to his more youthful brother.
He was once additionally accused of conferring an unfair benefit on Enginos Nigeria Restricted by way of influencing the award of a N1,345,586,500 contract for the development of a terminal development at Katsina Airport.
The fee additional alleged that Sirika influenced the award of a N3,811,497,685 contract for the status quo of a fireplace truck repairs and refurbishment centre on the airport, amongst different allegations.
The prosecution mentioned the alleged offences have been dedicated in Abuja between August 2022 and Would possibly 2023 and contravened Sections 12 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Different Comparable Offences Act, 2000; Phase 17(b) of the EFCC (Status quo) Act, 2004; and Phase 315 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532, Rules of the Federal Capital Territory.
The defendants, alternatively, pleaded now not to blame to the costs introduced in opposition to them by way of the EFCC on behalf of the Federal Govt.
On the resumed listening to, Yesufu first of all maintained underneath cross-examination that the terminal development and apron enlargement contracts have been a unmarried venture.
He mentioned, “Challenge of terminal development and apron enlargement (on the Katsina airport) are one venture. The contract for the apron enlargement and terminal development are joint venture.”
When requested to learn from web page 5 of Showcase C1, a request for no objection submitted by way of the Aviation Ministry’s Ministerial Tenders Board to the BPP, Yesufu mentioned the report shaped the foundation of his previous place.
On the other hand, when Numa directed him to web page 15 of the similar showcase, the witness said that the request was once made by way of the ministry’s then Everlasting Secretary, Abel Enitan, who chaired the Ministerial Tenders Board, fairly than any of the defendants.
Faced with different paperwork, Yesufu informed the courtroom that the budgetary code for the improve of Katsina Airport differed from the only for the terminal development contract.
Regarding Showcase C at C7919, dated Would possibly 16, 2022, he mentioned merchandise 14, with serial quantity 597, carried a budgetary code for the airport improve, which failed to correspond with the contract awarded underneath Showcase A1.
“Showcase A1 is the award of contract for development of terminal development on the Katsina airport. The article does now not come with apron enlargement as contained in Showcase C,” he mentioned.
The witness showed that the budgetary code for the development and enlargement of the airport apron was once other from that of the terminal development.
“From the appropriation, the 2 initiatives are other (initiatives),” he informed the courtroom.
Yesufu additional showed that the initiatives weren’t awarded to a unmarried corporate, including that he could be stunned if the Aviation Ministry’s Director of Procurement testified that the contracts have been separate.
Responding to some other query from Numa, the witness mentioned the separation of terminal development and apron enlargement contracts was once now not abnormal to Katsina Airport, including that the similar association implemented to initiatives at Port Harcourt Airport.
Despite the fact that he mentioned supervising initiatives was once a part of his tasks, Yesufu admitted that he had by no means visited the Katsina Airport venture.
“I by no means visited the Katsina airport. We have been by no means mandated to discuss with it,” he mentioned.
He additionally informed the courtroom that the BPP had now not withheld acclaim for the development of the terminal development and apron enlargement initiatives and had won no proceedings of breaches when it comes to them.
Throughout cross-examination by way of suggest to the second one defendant, Ahmad Sirika, the witness showed that the BPP issued a no-objection certificates for the initiatives after engaging in due diligence at the paperwork submitted to it.
Justice Belgore adjourned the case till December 8 and 9 for imaginable re-assessment of the witness by way of the prosecution and continuation of the trial.