A prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of former Minister of Aviation, Senator Hadi Abubakar Sirika, has reversed his earlier position that the construction of a terminal building and expansion of the apron at Katsina Airport constituted a single project, admitting under cross-examination that they were separate projects with different budgetary codes.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
The witness, Engineer Isaiah Ganiyu Yesufu, Director of Certification, Compliance and Monitoring at the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), made the admission before Justice Saiman Belgore of the Federal Capital Territory High Court during proceedings in the alleged ₦19.4 billion contract fraud case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Yesufu, the third prosecution witness (PW3), initially maintained that the terminal building and apron expansion contracts formed one project but changed his position after being confronted with documentary evidence tendered by the prosecution.
Sirika, who served as Minister of Aviation under the administration of the late President Muhammadu Buhari, is standing trial alongside his younger brother, Ahmad Abubakar Sirika, and two companies, Al-Buraq Limited and Enginos Nigeria Limited.
The EFCC alleged that the former minister abused his office by influencing the award of contracts worth approximately ₦19.4 billion to companies allegedly linked to his younger brother.
The defendants are facing a 10-count charge bordering on abuse of office, criminal breach of trust and using public office for personal gratification.
Among the allegations, the commission accused Sirika of conferring an unfair advantage on Enginos Nigeria Limited by influencing the award of a ₦1,345,586,500 contract for the construction of a terminal building at Katsina Airport.
The EFCC also alleged that the former minister used his position to influence the award of a ₦3,811,497,685 contract for the establishment of a Fire Truck Maintenance and Refurbishment Centre at the same airport.
According to the prosecution, the alleged offences were committed in Abuja between August 2022 and May 2023, contrary to Sections 12 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000; Section 17(b) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004; and Section 315 of the Penal Code Act, applicable in the Federal Capital Territory.
All the defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges.
At the resumed hearing, counsel to Enginos Nigeria Limited and Al-Buraq Limited, Michael Numa, SAN, questioned Yesufu about the relationship between the terminal building and apron expansion projects.
The witness initially insisted that both contracts constituted a single project.
“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.
Numa subsequently directed the witness to Page 5 of Exhibit C1, containing a request for a certificate of no objection submitted to the BPP by the Ministry of Aviation’s Ministerial Tenders Board.
Yesufu maintained that the document formed the basis of his earlier conclusion that the contracts were part of one project.
However, when asked to examine Page 15 of the same exhibit, the witness acknowledged that the request was not made by any of the defendants but by the ministry’s then Permanent Secretary, Abel Enitan, who also served as Chairman of the Ministerial Tenders Board.
The defence counsel further confronted the witness with appropriation records and contract award documents, drawing his attention to the separate budgetary provisions for the projects.
Referring to Exhibit C, the witness identified an entry dated May 16, 2022, under Item 14, with serial number 597, relating to the upgrade of Katsina Airport.
He acknowledged that the appropriation entry was different from the contract award contained in Exhibit A1.
“Exhibit C at C7919, dated 16th May, 2022, at Item 14 with serial number 597 as budgetary code is for upgrade of Katsina airport. It was not what was awarded in Exhibit A1,” he stated.
“Exhibit A1 is the award of contract for construction of terminal building at the Katsina airport. The item does not include apron expansion as contained in Exhibit C.”
The witness subsequently confirmed that the construction of the terminal building and the expansion of the apron had different budgetary codes.
“From the appropriation, the two projects are different,” Yesufu admitted.
He further explained that the projects were not awarded to a single company.
The witness also acknowledged that the request for procurement approval originated from the Ministerial Tenders Board rather than directly from any of the defendants.
During further questioning, Yesufu confirmed that treating terminal building construction and apron expansion as separate projects was not peculiar to Katsina Airport.
He told the court that a similar arrangement existed at Port Harcourt Airport, where the two categories of infrastructure development were also treated separately.
The witness was subsequently questioned about the extent of the BPP’s involvement in supervising and approving the Katsina Airport projects.
Although he identified project supervision as one of his official responsibilities, Yesufu admitted that he never personally visited Katsina Airport to inspect the projects.
“I never visited the Katsina airport. We were never mandated to visit it,” he told the court.
He further disclosed that the BPP did not withhold approval for the construction of the terminal building or the apron expansion.
According to him, the bureau did not receive any complaint alleging a breach of procurement procedures in relation to the projects.
During cross-examination by counsel to the second defendant, Ahmad Abubakar Sirika, Yesufu confirmed that the BPP issued certificates of no objection for the terminal building and apron expansion contracts.
He explained that the bureau conducted due diligence before granting the approvals, relying on the procurement documents submitted by the Ministry of Aviation.
The witness maintained that the BPP’s approvals were issued after the relevant documents had been examined.
His testimony introduced a distinction between the separate budgetary provisions for the projects and the procurement approvals granted by the bureau.
The admission that the contracts were separate projects contradicted his initial position during cross-examination that the terminal building and apron expansion formed a single project.
However, the witness’s confirmation that the BPP issued certificates of no objection does not, by itself, determine whether the contracts were lawfully awarded or whether any defendant committed the offences alleged by the prosecution.
Those issues remain for the court to determine after considering the totality of the evidence.
Following the cross-examination, Justice Belgore adjourned the matter to December 8 and 9, 2026, for possible re-examination of the third prosecution witness by the prosecution and continuation of hearing.
Sirika and his co-defendants have denied the allegations, and the trial remains ongoing.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
