A former Comptroller General of Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS), David Shikfu Paradang has denied involvement in the 2014 recruitment exercise conducted by his agency which led to the death of about 20 job seekers.
Paradang spoke Wednesday while testifying as the first prosecution witness in the trial of former Minister of Interior, Abba Moro and three others before a Federal High Court in Abuja.
Moro is being tried with a former Permanent Secretary in the Interior Ministry, Mrs. Anastasia Daniel-Nwobia, an ex-director in the ministry, Felix .O Alayebami and a firm, Drexel Tech Nigeria Limited, on an 11-count charge.
They are being tried over their alleged involvement in the botched 2014 recruitment exercise of the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) while Moro was Minister.
They are accused of defrauding 675, 675 graduate applicants of about N675,675,000 having been made to pay N1000 each as processing fees for 5,000 (five thousand) job openings.
The four defendants also were accused of breaching the Public Procurement Act, No. 65 of 2007 in the award of the contract for the organisation of the recruitment test to Drexel Tech Nigeria Ltd.
Paradang, who was led in evidence yesterday by prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Yusuf, said even as the head of NIS, he was never involved in the planning and execution of the recruitment exercise, but only read about it in the media.
He said his attention was drawn to a publication in one of the dailies – Sunday Trust – on September 9, in respect of a recruitment exercise purportedly being carried out by NIS
Paradang said: “As the then Comptroller General of the NIS, I was neither aware of the ‘advertisement’ nor the recruitment exercise. So, it came to me as a surprise.”
When asked what he did when he became aware of the exercise, the witness said he called the Secretary of the NIS board, one Dr. Attahiru and asked if the agency was recruiting, to which the man responded ‘yes’.
Paradnag, who said he was worried by Attahiru’s response, told the court that he further asked him (Attahiru) why he, as the head of the organisation, was not informed of the recruitment.
He said Attahiru told him not to worry.
Paradang said he was unsatisfied, and later called two of the board members, who also claimed they were not aware of the exercise.
Paradang stated that he wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Board, Dr Attahiru that same day, September 9, 2013, expressing his dismay over the advertisement placed for employment.
At that point, defence lawyers, Chris Uche (SAN), Paul Erokoro (SAN), and Sunday Ameh (SAN) objected to admissibility of a copy of the letter and the witness’ pattern of evidence, saying its amounted to hearsay evidence.
They argued that though the letter was certified, necessary fees were not paid as required by law.
The defence team argued that Paradang could not give details of what he was told by others who are not witnesses before the court.
Erokoro (for Moro) Erokoro argued that though the document was certified, there was no evidence to show that the certification fee was paid as it carries no endorsement certificate
He said, being a public document, it is not admissible as it has not met all the necessary conditions precedent to its admissibility.
Uche (for Mrs Daniel-Nwobia) agreed with Erokoro’s position and urged the court to reject the document.
Ameh (for Alayebami ) argued that the certification had to be done by the person who had the original of the letter, but it was done by the officer of the Ministry of Interior instead of the officer of the Civil Defence who was the Secretary of the board.
Ameh added that the essence of certification is to show that the content of the document is the same as the original.
Responding, Yusuf contended that the document, being relevant to the proceedings, is admissible as relevancy determines admissibility.
He said, the witness (Paradang) had testified that he made the document and sent it to the Secretary of the Board.
On the issue of fees payment, Yusuf cited Section 104 of the Evidence Act to support his position that such requirement was not necessary in criminal proceedings.
On the argument on who has custody of the document, Yusuf argued that the board is part and parcel of the Ministry of Interior and as such it is expected to superintend over the affairs of some parastatals under it.
Trial judge, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba adjourned to June 10, 2016 for ruling and continuation of trial.
