A Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday deferred its ruling on an application seeking to discontinue the alleged N2.8 billion fraud trial involving former Aviation Minister Hadi Sirika until the day judgment will be delivered in the substantive case.

Justice S.C. Oriji made the decision during proceedings in the case filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Sirika, his daughter, Fatima Hadi Sirika, and his son-in-law, Hamma Jalal Sule.

The anti-graft agency is prosecuting the defendants on an amended six-count charge bordering on alleged contract fraud involving Al Buraq Global Investment Limited, a company allegedly linked to Sirika’s daughter. The EFCC alleges that the contracts in question were worth N2.83 billion.

During Tuesday’s proceedings, counsel to the third defendant, Sanusi Musa (SAN), urged the court to prevent the prosecution from presenting further evidence in the matter. He also requested that all evidence and exhibits already tendered before the court be expunged and the charges dismissed.

According to Musa, the prosecution instituted the case on the basis of an incomplete investigation and should therefore not be allowed to continue with the trial.

However, prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), opposed the application. He argued that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 permits the filing of additional evidence and exhibits at any stage before final judgment is delivered.

Jacobs further submitted that there were several decisions of both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal supporting the admissibility of additional proof in an ongoing criminal trial.

In his ruling, Justice Oriji held that while defendants are entitled to raise objections before judgment, the issues contained in the application were closely tied to the substantive allegations before the court.

“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, in my view, judicial prudence dictates that it is better to deliver the ruling on the motion along with the judgment on the charge after the trial and I so direct,” he said.

He subsequently adjourned the matter until June 10, 2026, for continuation of trial proceedings.