Justice S.C. Oriji of the FCT High Court, Maitama on Monday, May 5, 2024 admitted more evidence against former Aviation Minister, Hadi Sirika.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC is prosecuting the former minister alongside his daughter Fatima Sirika, son in-law Jalal Sule Hamma and Al Buraq Global Investment Limited on amended six-count charge, bordering on abuse of office to the tune of N2.7billion.
During Monday’s proceeding, prosecution counsel, A.O Atolagbe, presented the Ninth Prosecution Witness, PW9. Led in his testimony by prosecution counsel, the witness, a retired General Manager, Administration and Human Resources of the Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority, NNRA disclosed that he received a letter from the EFCC regarding investigation on the third defendant, Hamma in his capacity as GM Administration and Human Resources, requesting that NNRA furnished the Commission with information about Hamma.
In his reply, he disclosed that he sent a letter to the Commission stating that Hamma was a staff of the Authority, duly employed in November 2021, but resigned his appointment after two years and prior to his confirmation. He further disclosed that a few months later, the Authority received a letter from the midstream and downstream oil sector, also requesting information about Hamma to which he also replied.
Information on Hamma he sent to the Commission included, his letter of appointment, letter of request for withdrawal of service, approval for withdrawal of service, indication that Hamma paid one month in lieu of notice of disengagement and list of the Authority’s properties in his possession, which he returned. He further identified the documents saying they were written on the letterhead paper of NNRA which was endorsed by him.
Atolagbe’s move for the documents to be tendered in evidence was objected to by Hamma’s counsel, Sanusi Musa SAN and that of the fourth defendant, M.J. Numa SAN. Musa had argued that the witness did not say that he received a letter from Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission NUPRC but from the midstream and downstream sector saying also that there was no foundation laid on that document while giving his evidence. Relying on Section 104 of the Evidence Act, Musa said that the documents were not relevant in the trial and that apart from pages one and two of documents, all other pages were not certified true copies and that no payments were made by the prosecution for certified true copies. Numa, SAN also held the same view.
In his reply, Atolagbe noted that where a document has attachments, such documents must be admitted with the attachments and that even when the attachments have been omitted, the court has the power to demand for such documents to be made available and to be admitted. He referenced Textile Applied Products Ltd vs H Stephens Ltd. He also argued that the witness mentioned ‘upstream’ in his evidence-in-chief, noting that his adding ‘midstream’ did not invalidate the fact that he received such a letter. “He does not work there, moreover, the witness also identified the documents,” he said.
After listening to the submission, Justice Oriji held that the documents be admitted in evidence, noting that “the fact that the witness flipped through the documents and identified them cures the objections.” On the issue of payment for certified true copies, the judge held that the documents cannot be rejected simply on that basis and ordered that the fees be paid for certified true copies of the documents.
The matter was adjourned till May 6, 2025 for continuation of trial.
