Justice S.C. Oriji of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama has accepted additional evidence against the former Aviation Minister, Hadi Sirika.
Naija News reports that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is pursuing legal action against Sirika, his daughter Fatima Sirika, son-in-law Jalal Sule Hamma, and Al Buraq Global Investment Limited on an amended six-count charge related to abuse of office amounting to ₦2.7 billion.
According to a statement from EFCC spokesperson Dele Oyewale, during the proceedings on Monday, May 5, 2025, prosecution counsel A.O. Atolagbe introduced the Ninth Prosecution Witness, PW9. During his testimony, the witness, who is a retired General Manager of Administration and Human Resources at the Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NNRA), revealed that he had received a letter from the EFCC concerning the investigation of the third defendant, Hamma, in his role as GM of Administration and Human Resources, requesting that the NNRA provide information regarding Hamma.
In his response, he indicated that he had sent a letter to the Commission confirming that Hamma was employed by the Authority in November 2021 but had resigned after two years before his confirmation.
He also mentioned that a few months later, the Authority received another letter from the midstream and downstream oil sector, requesting information about Hamma, to which he also responded.
The information regarding Hamma that he submitted to the Commission comprised his appointment letter, a request for withdrawal of service, approval for the withdrawal, confirmation that Hamma paid one month in lieu of notice for disengagement, and a list of the Authority’s properties in his possession, which he subsequently returned.
He further clarified that these documents were printed on the letterhead of the NNRA and were signed by him. Atolagbe’s request to present these documents as evidence was opposed by Hamma’s attorney, Sanusi Musa, SAN, as well as the attorney for the fourth defendant, M.J. Numa, SAN.
Musa contended that the witness did not indicate receiving a letter from the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), but rather from the midstream and downstream sector, asserting that no foundation was established for that document during his testimony. Citing Section 104 of the Evidence Act, Musa argued that the documents were irrelevant to the trial, and noted that, aside from the first two pages, the remaining pages were not certified true copies, and that the prosecution had not made any payments for certified true copies. Numa, SAN, concurred with this perspective.
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 that such documents 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 reviewing the submission, Justice Oriji determined that the documents should be accepted as evidence, stating that ‘the witness’s examination and identification of the documents addresses the objections raised.’
Regarding the payment for certified true copies, the judge ruled that the documents cannot be dismissed solely on that ground and mandated the payment of fees for the certified true copies.
The case has been postponed until May 6, 2025, for the continuation of the trial.