By Edith Nwapi
THE MAITAMA Division of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court on Thursday sustained Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s objection to a document sought to be tendered by the former Aviation minister, Heidi Sirika.
The EFCC dragged Sirika alongside his daughter, Fatima; Jalal Hamma and Al-Duraq Investment Limited, for abuse of office and contract fraud.
They are standing trial before Justice Sylvanus Oriji on six counts.
The minister who served under former President Muhammadu Buhari was accused of abusing his office as minister through the award of contracts to a company in which his daughter and her husband had interest.
The offence allegedly committed by the former minister and others, according to the prosecution, were contrary to Sections 12 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000, to Section 17 (b) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004.
The anti-graft agency also said the offence contravenes the provisions of Section 315 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532 Acts of the Federal Capital Territory and punishable under the same sections.
Ruling on the admissibility of a document sought to tend by Michael Numa, SAN counsel representing Sirius and Al-Duraq investment Ltd, Oriji held that the objection by EFCC was sustained.
The judge noted that the issue in contention was whether Al-Duraq Investment Limited was not approved by the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP)as stated by EFCC 4th witness.
He held that the issue before the court is whether the document could be tendered through the witness for cross examination with sections 222(2), 232 and 233(c) in view.
He noted that Section 222(2) provides that a witness may give oral evidence or statement made are relevant.
“Such are not applicable or relevant in this case and the cases cited by M.J. Nima are also not applicable.”
He held that other sections are also not relevant to the instant case.
“It is a commonly said that before a document can be tendered through a witness, by the adverse party during cross examination; the cross examiner must establish a link or nexus between the witness and the document sought to e tendered.
“In the instant case, the cross examiner, did not even show the witness the document sought to be tendered.
“I am unmindful of the fact on the previous state, the subsequent true copy of this document was shown to the witness and he said he did not know of it.
“What is sought to be tendered today is another genre of the document that is the original.
“Moreover, no link or nexus was established between the witness and the document as a condition for its admissibility through him.
“None of the cases cited dealt with the scenario in this case.
“It is remarkably different from the case before me, the objection is hereby sustained.
“The letter dated June 6, 2022 from BPP to the perm sec, ministry of Aviation is rejected and marked “Rejected 1.”
The court further rejected the same document when Sanuisi Musa, SAN third defendant’s counsel also sought to tender it.
Justice Oriji after listening to the cross examination of the 4th EFCC ‘s witness adjourned until Nov. 15 for continuation.
The witness Engr Isaiah Yusuf testified as EFCC 4th witness (PW4) testified on July 2 and July 5
Being cross examined by the 1st and 4th defendants counsel, Michael Numa, SAN, the witness said Al-Duraq Global Investment Limited was not listed as bidders in the request brought to them (BPP).
Numa therefore prayed the court to subpoena a witness to bring a document to contradict the evidence of the witness. (NAN)
