Justice Sylvanus Oriji of the Federal Capital Territory High Court Maitama in Abuja on Thursday adjourned till November 15 to continue the trial of former Minister of Aviation, Hadi Sirika.
Sirika, his daughter Fatima Sirika, his son-in-law Jalal Hamma and a firm, Al-Buraq Global Investment Limited, are facing a six-count bordering on abuse of office and contract fraud brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The minister who served under former President Muhammadu Buhari was accused of abusing his office as a minister by awarding contracts to a company in which his daughter and son-in-law had an interest.
According to the prosecution, the offences allegedly committed by the former minister and others were contrary to Sections 12 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000, to Section 17 (b) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004.
In addition, Section 315 of the Penal Code Act Cap 532 Acts of the Federal Capital Territory are punishable under the same sections.
At Thursday’s hearing, Justice Oriji granted the objection of EFCC to the admissibility of a document sought to be tendered by Michael Numa (SAN), counsel representing 1st and 4th defendants (Hadi and Al-Buraq) in the suit.
The judge refused for the document to be tendered on the ground that the issue in contention was whether Al-Buraq Investment Limited was approved or not by the Bureau of Public Procurement, as stated by the prosecution witness.
The judge held that the issue before the court bothers on whether the document could be tendered through the witness for cross-examination with sections 222(2), 232 and 233(c) in view.
He noted that section 222(2) provides that a witness may give oral evidence or statements made are relevant.
He said, “Such are not applicable or relevant in this case, and the cases cited by M.J. Nima are also not applicable.”
“It is commonly said that before a document can be tendered through a witness by the adverse party during cross-examination, the cross-examiner must establish a link or nexus between the witness and the document sought to be tendered.
“In the instant case, the cross-examiner did not even show the witness the document sought to be tendered.
“I am unmindful of the fact that in the previous state, the subsequent true copy of this document was shown to the witness, and he said he did not know of it.
“What is sought to be tendered today is another genre of the document that is the original.
“Moreover, no link or nexus was established between the witness and the document as a condition for its admissibility through him.
“None of the cases cited dealt with the scenario in this case.
“It is remarkably different from the case before me, and the objection is hereby sustained.
‘The letter dated June 6, 2022, from BPP to the Perm Secretary of the Ministry of Aviation is rejected and marked “Rejected 1.”
The court afterwards rejected the same document, which was again tendered to be admitted by the 3rd defendant’s (Jalal Sule Hammal) counsel, Sanusi Musa, SAN.
In his testimony, the fourth prosecution witness, Isaiah Yusuf, said Al-Duraq Global Investment Limited was not listed as a bidder in the request brought to BPP.