EFCC witness changes position during cross-examination, confirms separate budgetary codes for the projects and says the BPP issued no-objection approvals before the contracts were awarded.
By A1 News International
ABUJA, October 27, 2026 — A prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of former Minister of Aviation, Senator Hadi Sirika, and three other defendants has told the FCT High Court in Garki, Abuja, that the contracts for the construction of the Katsina Airport terminal building and the expansion of its apron were separate projects.
The testimony by Engr. Isaiah Yesufu, Director of Certification, Compliance and Monitoring at the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), contradicted his initial position during cross-examination that the two projects constituted a single undertaking.
Yesufu, the third prosecution witness (PW3) in the case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), acknowledged that the projects had different budgetary codes and were treated separately in the relevant appropriation documents.
The witness made the clarification while being cross-examined by Michael Numa, SAN, counsel to the two companies named in the charge, Enginos Nigeria Limited and Al-Buraq Limited.
The proceedings centred on documentary evidence relating to the procurement process, the classification of the projects and the approvals granted by the BPP.
Witness Revises Position on Katsina Airport Contracts
During cross-examination, Yesufu initially maintained that the terminal building and apron expansion at Katsina Airport were part of the same project.
“I am saying that the 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,” he told the court.
However, when Numa directed him to relevant portions of documents tendered by the prosecution, the witness acknowledged distinctions between the two projects.
The witness explained that his initial position was based on a request for a no-objection approval submitted by the Ministry of Aviation’s Ministerial Tenders Board to the BPP.
When asked to examine page 15 of Exhibit C1, however, Yesufu acknowledged that the request had been made by the ministry’s then Permanent Secretary, Mr Abel Enitan, who chaired the Ministerial Tenders Board, rather than by any of the defendants.
The exchange prompted further examination of the documentary evidence relating to the projects.
Different Budgetary Codes for Terminal and Apron Projects
The witness subsequently confirmed that the two projects had different budgetary classifications.
Referring to Exhibit C, page C7919, dated May 16, 2022, Yesufu identified item 14, with serial number 597, as a budgetary entry for the upgrade of Katsina Airport.
He told the court that the item did not correspond with the contract awarded under Exhibit A1, which concerned the construction of the airport’s terminal building.
According to the witness, the budgetary entry for the airport upgrade did not include apron expansion in the same manner as the contract for the terminal building.
He further confirmed that the budgetary code for the construction and expansion of the airport apron was different from the code for the terminal building.
“From the appropriation, the two projects are different (projects),” Yesufu told the court.
He added that the Ministerial Tenders Board could not make a request for the execution of projects without the relevant appropriation.
The testimony placed the budgetary classification and scope of the contracts at the centre of the court’s examination of the procurement process.
BPP Did Not Withhold Approval, Witness Says
Under further questioning, Yesufu told the court that the BPP had not withheld approval for the construction of the terminal building and the expansion of the apron at Katsina Airport.
He said the bureau issued no-objection approvals for the projects after conducting due diligence on the documents submitted to it.
The witness also stated that the BPP had not received complaints alleging breaches in connection with the projects.
His testimony addressed the role of the procurement regulator in reviewing the ministry’s submissions and issuing the relevant approvals.
However, the witness acknowledged that he had never visited the Katsina Airport project site.
“I never visited the Katsina Airport. We were never mandated to visit it,” he said.
Although he identified project supervision as one of his official responsibilities, his evidence established that he had not personally inspected the projects in Katsina.
Similar Separation at Port Harcourt Airport
The BPP director also confirmed that the separation of terminal building and apron expansion contracts was not peculiar to Katsina Airport.
When shown another document by Numa, Yesufu acknowledged that the two components had similarly been treated separately at Port Harcourt Airport.
He also stated that the Katsina Airport projects were not awarded to a single company.
The evidence added another dimension to the cross-examination, which examined how airport construction and expansion projects were classified, budgeted for and awarded.
EFCC Alleges N19.4 Billion Contract Irregularities
Sirika, who served as aviation minister under the late President Muhammadu Buhari, is being prosecuted alongside his younger brother, Ahmad Sirika, and two companies, Al-Buraq Limited and Enginos Nigeria Limited.
The defendants are facing a 10-count charge bordering on alleged abuse of office, criminal breach of trust and the use of position for gratification.
The EFCC alleges that the former minister used his position to influence the award of contracts worth approximately N19.4 billion to his younger brother.
One of the allegations concerns the award of a contract to Enginos Nigeria Limited for the construction of a terminal building at Katsina Airport, valued at N1,345,586,500.
The commission also alleges that Sirika influenced the award of a contract for the establishment of a Fire Truck Maintenance and Refurbishment Centre at Katsina Airport, valued at N3,811,497,685.
According to the prosecution, the alleged offences were committed in Abuja between August 2022 and May 2023.
The EFCC is relying on provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004, and the Penal Code Act applicable to the Federal Capital Territory in pursuing the charges.
The defendants, however, pleaded not guilty to the allegations.
The prosecution’s allegations remain to be determined by the court.
Ahmad Sirika’s Counsel Questions BPP’s Procurement Process
During a separate cross-examination by counsel to the second defendant, Ahmad Sirika, Yesufu reiterated that the BPP had issued no-objection approvals for the construction of the terminal building and the apron expansion.
He maintained that the bureau conducted due diligence before issuing the approvals, based on the documents submitted to it.
The testimony focused on the regulatory procedures followed by the BPP and the documentary basis for its decisions concerning the contracts.
The court’s consideration of the evidence is expected to continue as the prosecution seeks to establish its case against the defendants.
Court Adjourns Case Until December 8
At the conclusion of the day’s proceedings, Justice Belgore adjourned the case until December 8, 2026, for possible re-examination of the witness by the prosecution and continuation of the hearing.
The next sitting is expected to provide an opportunity for the prosecution to clarify issues arising from the cross-examination.
The trial will determine whether the EFCC can establish the allegations against Sirika, his brother and the two companies beyond reasonable doubt.
The testimony of the BPP director has brought the separate budgetary classifications of the Katsina Airport terminal building and apron expansion projects into sharper focus. His evidence that the bureau issued no-objection approvals and received no complaints concerning the projects forms part of the record the court will consider alongside the prosecution’s allegations and other evidence.
The defendants have denied the charges by pleading not guilty. The case remains before the FCT High Court, with further proceedings scheduled for December 8, 2026.
Leave a Reply