RismadarVoice Reporters
June 2, 2026
Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, has deferred ruling on an application seeking to discontinue the alleged N2.8 billion contract fraud trial involving former Minister of Aviation, Hadi Sirika, until the day of final judgment.
Justice S.C. Oriji gave the ruling on Tuesday, stating that the issues raised in the application were closely linked to the substantive case and would be more appropriately determined alongside the final judgment.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting Sirika, his daughter, Fatima Hadi Sirika, and his son-in-law, Hamma Jalal Sule, on an amended six-count charge bordering on alleged contract fraud involving N2,825,032,220.97.
According to the anti-graft agency, the funds were linked to contracts awarded to Al Buraq Global Investment Limited, a company allegedly associated with Sirika’s daughter.
During proceedings, counsel to the third defendant, Hamma Jalal Sule, Sanusi Musa (SAN), urged the court to halt further prosecution of the case. He argued that the EFCC filed the charges based on an incomplete investigation and requested that all evidence and exhibits already tendered be expunged from the court’s records.
Musa also asked the court to dismiss the charges entirely.
However, counsel to the prosecution, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), opposed the application, relying on Section 379(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015. He argued that the law permits the filing of additional evidence and exhibits at any stage before judgment is delivered.
Jacobs further cited decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal supporting the admissibility of additional proof in ongoing criminal proceedings.
In his ruling, Justice Oriji referenced Section 396(2) of the ACJA, noting that while objections to the validity of charges may be raised before judgment, such objections can be determined together with the substantive issues at the conclusion of the trial.
“This motion is not challenging the validity of the charge. However, the issues and prayers in this application are inextricably tied or connected to the determination of the charge. Therefore, judicial prudence dictates that it is better to deliver the ruling on the motion along with the judgment on the charge after the trial,” the judge held.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter until June 10, 2026, for continuation of trial.
