Follow Us on Google
By Lukman Olabiyi
A Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, yesterday admitted Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) board resolutions tendered by the defence to challenge claims that its former Managing Director, Ahmed Kuru, unilaterally approved the receivership of Arik Air.
Justice Mojisola Dada admitted the documents despite the prosecution’s objection, ruling that they were relevant to the proceedings and duly certified in accordance with Section 104 of the Evidence Act.
The development occurred during the cross-examination of the fourth prosecution witness, Bawa Usman Kaltungo, Director of the Lagos Zonal Directorate 2 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), in the trial of Kuru and four other defendants over alleged fraud involving billions of naira and millions of dollars.
Kaltungo had maintained that Kuru, as AMCON’s managing director and chief executive officer, wielded extensive powers and unilaterally approved the appointment of a receiver-manager for Arik Air.
However, counsel to the second defendant, Uyi Giwa-Osagie, tendered the board resolutions to challenge the testimony and establish the role played by AMCON’s board in the receivership decision.
Objecting to the documents, the prosecution argued that they were too remote to the issues before the court to warrant their admission.
But Giwa-Osagie argued that the documents were directly relevant to determining his client’s culpability in the alleged offences.
He submitted that Kuru was not standing trial over the propriety of AMCON’s power to appoint a receiver-manager but over the specific allegations contained in the charge sheet.
The defence counsel maintained that the board resolutions would help establish the circumstances surrounding the receivership and test the prosecution witness’s claim that Kuru acted unilaterally.
He further argued that the documents were public records that could be tendered from the Bar.
In her ruling, Justice Dada upheld the defence’s position on admissibility, holding that the documents emanated from AMCON’s board as a corporate body and had been duly certified in line with Section 104 of the Evidence Act.
During cross-examination, Kaltungo had described Arik Air’s receivership as fraudulent, insisting that the airline was not indebted to Union Bank of Nigeria Plc in the manner alleged.
The EFCC director said he led the commission’s team that investigated a petition concerning the airline. He told the court that, at a meeting with AMCON’s top management, he had informed them that Arik Air was not indebted to Union Bank and that the appointment of a receiver-manager was defective.
“The foundation for the appointment of a receivership over Arik Air was fraudulent and faulty. There was no bad debt; it does not exist,” the witness said.
His testimony forms part of the prosecution’s case concerning Arik Air’s loan obligations, the transfer of its debt exposure to AMCON and transactions involving the airline’s assets.
The case followed a petition by human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), on behalf of Arik Air’s promoters and shareholders over the airline’s receivership and related transactions.
The defendants are Kuru; Kamilu Alaba Omokide, a former receiver-manager of Arik Air; Captain Roy Ilegbodu, the airline’s chief executive officer; Union Bank of Nigeria Plc; and Super Bravo Limited.
They are facing a six-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing and abuse of office. All five defendants pleaded not guilty when they were arraigned on January 20, 2025.
One of the allegations in the charge sheet is that Union Bank, sometime in 2011, allegedly made false statements to AMCON concerning Arik Air’s performing loans, leading to the transfer of what the prosecution described as a bogus debt exposure of N71 billion to the corporation.
Another count alleges that Kuru, Omokide and Ilegbodu fraudulently converted N4.9 billion belonging to Arik Air to the use of NG Eagle Limited in 2022.
The further trial has been fixed for October 27, 2026.
