EFCC witness admits he never investigated the alleged presidential approval before making his statement, as defence challenges prosecution’s position on NSITF procurement authority.
By Obiageli Ndubuishi
ABUJA, NIGERIA
The trial of former Minister of Labour and Employment, Chris Ngige, over alleged N2.2 billion fraud before Justice Maryam Hassan on Thursday took a fresh turn as a disputed presidential directive authorizing the transfer of procurement responsibilities from the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) to the Ministry of Labour and Employment dominated proceedings at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Gwarimpa, Abuja.
The controversy emerged during the cross-examination of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s third prosecution witness, Orwusoro Maduka, by Ngige’s defence counsel, Patrick Ikwueto, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).
The defence presented a presidential directive before the witness, seeking to establish that the former minister acted on presidential approval when he exercised oversight over procurement activities at the NSITF.
However, Maduka declined to confirm the authenticity or implications of the document, saying he was seeing it for the first time.
“I cannot agree because I am just seeing the document now,” the witness told the court.
He subsequently expressed regret that the document had not been made available during the EFCC investigation, suggesting that its earlier presentation could have helped clarify issues surrounding the procurement arrangements at the agency.
“How I wish he (Mr Ngige) had given us then; it would have solved a lot of problems,” Maduka said.
Defence Challenges EFCC Witness Over Presidential Approval
During the proceedings, Ikwueto asked whether the witness’s statement to the EFCC would have been different if the presidential directive had been made available to him before the investigation was concluded.
EFCC counsel, Sylvanus Tahir, objected to the question, describing it as speculative.
However, trial judge, Justice Maryam Hassan, allowed the question.
In his response, Maduka maintained that the document would have provided important clarification regarding the source of the instructions under which the Ministry of Labour assumed procurement responsibilities at the NSITF.
“This document has been hidden, only if this document had been given to us. We were only directed in the beginning. Finally, we are seeing where this direction is coming from,” he told the court.
The witness also questioned the genuineness of the presidential directive presented by the defence, prompting Ikwueto to draw his attention to the section bearing the signature associated with the Ministry of Labour and Employment.
Importantly, Maduka admitted that he did not make any independent inquiry into the existence or authenticity of the alleged presidential directive before preparing his statement for the EFCC.
The admission provided another opening for the defence to challenge the completeness of the investigation and the conclusions drawn by the anti-graft agency.
EFCC, Defence Disagree Over Access to Witness Statement
Another point of disagreement during the proceedings concerned the production of Maduka’s extra-judicial statement to the EFCC for examination by the defence.
Ikwueto sought to examine the statement, but EFCC counsel insisted that the defence should formally apply for Certified True Copies (CTCs) of the relevant documents.
The disagreement added another layer to the legal exchanges surrounding the prosecution’s evidence and the defence’s efforts to scrutinise the basis of the allegations against the former minister.
Presidential Directive Remains Central to Procurement Dispute
The question of who had the legal authority to oversee and approve NSITF procurement activities has remained a recurring issue in Ngige’s trial.
The former minister has consistently maintained that his actions were supported by a presidential directive authorising the Ministry of Labour and Employment to assume procurement oversight responsibilities at the agency.
The EFCC, however, has challenged this position, relying partly on evidence relating to the statutory procurement responsibilities of the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP).
The dispute has become particularly significant because the NSITF is a federal agency supervised by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, while public procurement activities are regulated by the BPP under the relevant procurement laws.
In June, Maduka told the court that he had never physically seen the presidential directive allegedly authorising the transfer of procurement responsibilities.
Nevertheless, he acknowledged that correspondences signed by Ngige referred to the existence of such presidential approval.
“There was a presidential order as directed by the minister (Mr Ngige) that the president approved following resolutions of the panel; one of such is that the procurement function of the NSITF be sent to the ministry for proper oversight,” he had earlier testified.
Although he admitted not seeing the original directive, the witness justified the actions taken under the arrangement, explaining that official correspondences signed by the minister made references to the presidential approval.
Similarly, the second prosecution witness, Kelly Nwagha, a former Acting Managing Director of the NSITF, had earlier told the court that he was only shown a portion of the disputed directive.
These testimonies have kept the existence, authenticity and legal implications of the presidential approval at the centre of the proceedings.
Background: How the NSITF Procurement Controversy Began
The dispute dates back to 2020, when former President Muhammadu Buhari approved the constitution of a new management board for the NSITF following an audit investigation into alleged violations of the Public Procurement Act and Financial Regulations within the agency.
Maduka was a member of the investigative panel established to examine the alleged irregularities.
Following its investigation, the panel reportedly recommended that procurement responsibilities at the NSITF be transferred to the Ministry of Labour and Employment for a specified period as part of measures to strengthen oversight and address identified administrative weaknesses.
Ngige’s defence team has consistently relied on the alleged presidential directive arising from the process to justify the former minister’s involvement in procurement activities at the agency.
The EFCC, however, has sought to counter the argument by relying on a letter from the Bureau of Public Procurement, maintaining that the BPP possessed statutory authority over federal public procurement.
Established to regulate public procurement across federal institutions, the BPP is mandated to promote transparency, competition, accountability and value for money in government contracting.
However, evidence previously given by Maduka has also raised questions about how procurement responsibilities were actually exercised under the disputed arrangement.
Witness Acknowledges Role of Parastatal Tender Board Committee
In his earlier testimony in June, Maduka disclosed that following Ngige’s communication concerning the presidential directives, a Parastatal Tender Board Committee (PTB) was constituted to handle procurement matters at the NSITF.
He identified Joyce, his deputy, as the committee’s secretary.
The witness further acknowledged that the BPP was aware of the arrangement.
According to his testimony, the Parastatal Tender Board Committee and the relevant ministerial tender board operated independently but maintained working relationships in the procurement process.
He explained that the PTB had a prescribed financial threshold within which it could award contracts, while contracts were forwarded to the ministry for approval where necessary.
Maduka also testified that several contracts awarded under the arrangement did not exceed the committee’s financial threshold.
Among the contracts he identified were:
- Consultancy services awarded to Shale Atlantic, valued at over N48 million and N49 million.
- Stakeholders’ engagement on safety and health, valued at N40 million.
- Contracts awarded to Jeff and Xris, valued at N47 million.
- Contracts awarded to Zitacom Limited, valued at N48 million and N49 million.
- A contract awarded to Cezimo Nigeria Limited, valued at N49 million.
- A contract awarded to Olde English Consolidated, valued at N49 million.
The testimony is significant to the defence’s argument that the procurement activities were conducted within an established administrative framework rather than through unilateral actions by the former minister.
However, the prosecution maintains its position that the alleged presidential directive does not resolve the questions surrounding the legality of the contracts and the alleged financial benefits received by Ngige or his associates.
Ngige Denies Allegations of N2.2bn Fraud
Ngige is facing eight charges bordering on alleged corruption, including receiving gratification from contractors handling NSITF projects and allegedly giving preferential treatment to associates in the award of contracts.
According to the EFCC, the former minister allegedly received financial benefits from contractors through an organisation identified as the Dr Chris Nwabueze Ngige Campaign Organisation.
The prosecution specifically alleged that funds were channelled through the organisation from Cezimo Nigeria Limited, citing an account maintained with Zenith Bank with account number 1011901119.
The commission further alleged that the offences were committed while Ngige served as Minister of Labour and Employment under the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
Ngige, a former governor of Anambra State and senator, has denied the allegations.
Presidential Directive Could Prove Crucial to Trial
Thursday’s proceedings have once again brought the disputed presidential directive into sharp focus, exposing the continuing disagreement between the prosecution and defence over the authority under which NSITF procurement activities were conducted.
The witness’s admission that he neither physically examined the directive nor investigated its existence before preparing his statement to the EFCC could become an important issue in the defence’s assessment of the investigation.
However, the existence of a presidential directive, even if established, does not automatically determine whether the contracts in question complied with applicable procurement laws or whether the alleged financial transactions constituted criminal offences.
Those questions remain matters for the court to determine based on the documentary and oral evidence presented by both parties.
As the trial continues, the court’s assessment of the disputed directive, the statutory powers of the BPP, the procurement arrangements at the NSITF and the alleged financial transactions will remain central to determining the case against the former minister.The case was later adjourned to 9th February 2027
Leave a Reply