Justice Sylvanus Oriji of a Federal High Court, Abuja Division,  on Thursday, rejected the admissibility of the statements made by the daughter and son-in-law of a former Aviation Minister, Hadi Sirika.

The statements were sought to be tendered by the prosecution in their ongoing trial in the alleged N2.7 billion Katsina airport contract fraud.

Mr Sirika, alongside his daughter, Fatima, son-in-law, Hamma  Sule, and Al-Buraq Global Investment Limited were charged with sixs counts of abuse of office and contract fraud by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on behalf of the Federal Government,

The former minister, according to the EFCC, abused his office by conferring unfair advantage on Al-Buraq Global Investment Limited, whose alter egos are said to be his daughter and son-in-law.

The anti-graft agency alleged that Mr Sirika used his position to influence the award of the contract for the apron extension at the Katsina airport for the sum of N1,498,300,750 to his daughter and son in-law.

This, according to the EFCC, is contrary to Sections 12 and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 and Section 17(b) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004 as well as Section 315 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532 Acts of the Federal Capital Territory and punishable under the same sections.

They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Ruling in the trial-within-trial, Justice Oriji held that the statements were obtained in violation of the provision of Section 15(4) of the Administration

This followed the objections raised by the defence in July 2025, on the ground that their statements were confessional and obtained under duress, of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

The court further held that the word “may” used in the section imposes a duty on law enforcement agencies to comply with the provisions of the law without any room for discretion.

“It is clear from the evidence of the witness that there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 15(4) of the ACJA 2015 when the statements of the second and third defendants were obtained by officers of the EFCC.

“The statements of the second and third defendants made at the EFCC office are inadmissible for non-compliance with the provision of Section 15(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015,” Justice Oriji held.

Following the court’s ruling, counsel for the third defendant, Sunusi Musa, SAN, informed the court of a motion to strike out proof of evidence and witness testimonies filed since October, 2025.
​
He added that the prosecution had also filed a counter-affidavit to the motion.

Responding to this, the prosecution counsel, Oluwaleke Atolagbe, informed the court that the prosecution was not prepared for the matter to proceed.
​
Justice Oriji then adjourned until June 2 for continuation of hearing.

(NAN)