copy of the letter dated 13/1/15 and list of managerial attached to it was admitted in evidence as Exhibit A1 and A2 respectively; while the copy of letter dated 18/5/15, a document attached to it were admitted in evidence as Exhibit B1 and B2 respectively. The PW1 further stated that the role he played was just to issue a letter of award of contract as directed by Chief of Air Staff. Under cross-examination by the Defence Counsel, the PW1 stated that the Defendant was not a member of the NAF Procurement Committee; that the items on Exhibit A2 did not originate from the NAF Procurement Committee; that he has serious misgivings as to the procurement in Exhibit A1 and A2 for the Air Force. At this stage, a copy of the PW1’s statement to the EFCC dated 15/2/16 was admitted in evidence as Exhibit C. The PW1 further led evidence to the effect that the Chief of Air Staff directed him to issue the award letters; left to him he would have not issued the letters because there was no prizing on them. 6