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.
Comments:
Leave a Reply