Court Defers Ruling on Motion to Drop Charges Against Former Aviation Minister Hadi Sirika

​Justice S.C. Oriji of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, has deferred a crucial ruling on a motion seeking to discontinue the trial of former Minister of Aviation, Hadi Sirika. In a decision delivered on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, the judge ruled that the application would instead be decided on the day of the final judgment, citing provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

​The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting Sirika alongside his daughter, Fatima Hadi Sirika, and his son-in-law, Hamma Jalal Sule. The trio faces an amended six-count charge bordering on a N2.8 billion contract fraud involving Al Buraq Global Investment Limited, a company allegedly linked to Sirika’s daughter.

​Defence Arguments and Incomplete Investigation Claims

​The procedural showdown began when Sanusi Musa, SAN, counsel for the third defendant (Hamma Jalal Sule), filed a motion on notice urging the court to halt the prosecution from presenting further evidence. Musa argued that the EFCC had initiated the case based on an incomplete investigation. He petitioned the court to:

ADVERTISEMENT

• ​Expunge all evidence and exhibits tendered by the prosecution so far.
• ​Dismiss the entire charge against the defendants.
• ​Bar the prosecution from introducing any additional witnesses or documents.

​Prosecution Counters with Supreme Court Precedents

​In a swift counter-argument, the EFCC’s legal team, led by Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, fiercely opposed the motion. Jacobs pointed to Section 379(2) of the ACJA 2015, which explicitly permits the prosecution to file additional evidence and exhibits at any stage of the proceedings before final judgment is rendered.

​Furthermore, Jacobs reminded the court that both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have consistently upheld the validity of filing supplementary proofs of evidence during an ongoing trial, rendering the defence’s objections legally untenable at this stage.

​Judicial Prudence Dictates Delay, Says Justice Oriji

​In his ruling, Justice Oriji invoked Section 396(2) of the ACJA 2015. He noted that while a defendant maintains the right to object to the validity of a charge at any point before judgment, such objections should generally be considered alongside the substantive issues of the case to prevent unnecessary delays.

​”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,” Justice Oriji stated. “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.”

​With the preliminary hurdle effectively merged into the final verdict, Justice Oriji adjourned the matter until June 10, 2026, for the continuation of the trial.