Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, on Wednesday, February 25, 2026, admitted in evidence more documents tendered by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission, EFCC, in the alleged N76bn, $31.5m fraud trial involving a former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, and others.
Kuru, alongside Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Captain Roy Ilegbodu, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc and Super Bravo Limited, are being prosecuted on a six-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing, and abuse of office.
One of the counts reads: “That you, Union Bank Nigeria Plc, sometime in 2011 or thereabouts, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with the intention of causing and/or inducing unwarranted sale of Arik Air loans and bank guarantees with Union Bank, made false statements to the Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), regarding Arik Air Limited’s performing loans, following which you transferred a bogus figure of N71, 000,000,000.00 (Seventy-One Billion Naira) to AMCON.”
Another count reads: “That you, Ahmed Lawal, Kuru, Kamilu Alaba Omokide as Receiver Manager of Arik Air Limited, and Captain Roy Ilegbodu, Chief Executive Officer of Arik Air Limited in Receivership, sometime in 2022 or thereabout, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, fraudulently converted to the use of NG Eagle Limited the total sum of N4, 900,000,000.00 (Four Billion Nine Hundred Million Naira only), property of Arik Air Limited.”
At the resumed sitting on Wednesday, the fourth prosecution witness, PW4, Usman Bawa Kaltungo, continued his examination-in-chief led by Wahab Shittu, SAN.
He had earlier begun his testimony on Friday, November 28, 2025, where he detailed the Commission’s findings from its investigation into the transactions involving Arik Air, Union Bank, AMCON, and several foreign lenders.
When asked if he was aware of any petition during the cause of investigations and who the petition was addressed to, he stated that “While investigations were ongoing, the first defendant wrote a complaint to the Attorney- General of the Federation, AGF, and Minister of Justice, complaining about the investigations and alleging harassment and intimidation by the prosecutors .
“The letter was addressed to the AGF and Minister of Justice.
“Based on inter-agency collaboration, we were made aware of the petition.”
Asked if the letter was written while the case was before the court, the witness, who is currently the acting Zonal Director, Lagos Zonal Directorate 2, EFCC, Ikoyi, answered in the affirmative, adding that the content of the letter was to the effect that the investigation be stopped.
Kaltungo told the court that the letter was related to the case and formed part of the official file of the case as well as the investigation.
He also stated that the AGF investigated the petition, with 39 attachments, and that a legal opinion was written by the Solicitor-General and Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice.
In his further testimony, the witness stated that the EFCC’s lawyer obtained the Certified True Copy, CTC, of the petition and the legal opinion.
Kaltungo added that he received the petition in his capacity as the Head of the investigating team.
At this point, he identified the documents, the petition and the legal opinion signed on behalf of the AGF and Minister of Justice.
The witness also told the court that the legal opinion and petition were both certified and that the proper fees were paid.
The prosecution counsel, thereafter, sought to tender in evidence the petition, legal opinion as well as the attachments.
Justice Dada marked and admitted them as exhibits P46.
When shown exhibit P46, the witness read out the receipt of payment of the CTC, the legal opinion, saying it was signed by the Solicitor -General of the Federation and Permanent Secretary.
“The petition was dated March 28, 2024, received at the Federal Ministry of Justice on March 28, 2024 and it was minuted to the Permanent Secretary on April 2, 2025,” he said.
Kaltungo also confirmed that the seal on the document bore the Federal Ministry of Justice’s Certified True Copy, adding that “the seal ran through all the documents. Some of the attachments were also certified by the Principal Executive Officer, Federal High Court.
He listed the 39 Annexures attached to the petition, including the petition by Sahara Reporters, copy of Arik creed of appointment, extracts from 61 Board meeting of AMCON , AMCON letter, Arik Air’s indebtedness, letter to EFCC dated June 16, 2023, extracts from AMCON Management Committee email , notice of termination and others.
When asked about the connection of these documents to the case, Kaltungo stated that “This is relevant to the case and the investigation of the case. The legal opinion relates to the subject matter of the case.”
Asked to talk about the steps taken during the investigation, upon receipt of the legal opinion, the witness said: “We asked the prosecution counsel to apply for the CTC, which he did and this formed part of our case file.”
Reacting to the question regarding if the investigation was extended to the CBN, he confirmed in the affirmative, adding that “a CTC was obtained from the 494th meeting of the Committee of Governors to CBN’s decision to appoint a receiver manager for Arik.
“A week after, the appointment and taking over were done.”
During the proceedings, the witness also identified the document, where the former MD requested to appoint a receiver, but which he had already done before approval was granted.
The prosecution counsel, thereafter, sought to tender in evidence the copy of the 494th meeting of the Committee of Governors to CBN .
Justice Dada marked and admitted them as exhibit P47.
According to the witness, the directors present at the meeting include: Godwin Emefiele as the Chairman; the Deputy Governor, Corporate Service, Sulaiman A.Barau; Deputy Governor , Economic Policy,
Sarah O. Alade; Deputy Governor, Financial System Stability, Okwu J. Nnanna.
Others are: Deputy Governor, Operations, Adebayo A. Adelabu;
Director of Corporate Secretarial, Yunusa Sanusi; AMCON MD, Ahmed Kuru (second defendant); Director of Banking Supervision, Ahmed Abdullahi and Senior Manager Banking Supervision, Adebayo Aderonke.
He said the resolution of the memo Kuru had was to take over Arik Airline 10110.
” The Chairman disclosed that the state of Arik Airline Limited had deteriorated and that urgent steps needed to be taken to the tide. He stated that the airline, which carried 60% of passenger traffic in the country could go down within two weeks if not rescued.
He added that the airline had paid out cash collaterals to its technical partners Lufthansa and allowed them to leave the country, thereby indicating that the owner had given up the airline.
” He further stated that he had discussion with three major banks who were creditors to airline and that the consensus was that the CBN should intervene.”
The witness further told the court that Kuru diverted funds belonging to Arik Air to offset insurance liabilities owed by Umza Airline, while serving as Receiver Manager of Arik Air.
Asked specifically to talk about the findings involving the second defendant from investigations, the witness said the second defendant made a public statement aired by Channels TV.
According to him, the ICT and Forensic Departments downloaded it in a flash and an affidavit was obtained for it.
The prosecution counsel sought to tender the flash drive and certificate of compliance, which the court marked and admitted as exhibit P48.
When exhibit P48 was played in court, the witness confirmed it to be the voice of the second defendant.
“In the course of investigation, we discovered that Arik money was diverted to pay for insurance cover for Umza Airline. We invited Umza Airline.
“The parties involved are the first, second and third defendants.
“As at the time of the investigation, they had not finished repaying,” he said.
After the witness identified the Certificate of Insurance, the prosecution counsel sought to tender the CTC.
However, counsel to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants objected, saying it was not relevant to any of the counts in the charge.
The defence counsel, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan, SAN, Oyinkan Badejo, SAN, Olalekan Ojo, SAN and Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, respectively vehemently opposed the tendering of the document, saying that “The document titled “Certificate of Insurance issued in favour of UMZA Aviation Service” is totally irrelevant to the charge.
They argued that “Relevance is important to admissibility and this document is not relevant to the fact. Reference must be made to the counts before the court. It is not intended to serve justice.”
The defence, therefore, urged the court to reject the document and enforce the rules of evidence received.
Responding, the prosecution counsel said the offences listed included abuse of office and stealing, amongst others.
“Again, my Lord is entitled to secure relevance as the prosecution can keep amending its charge.
“The charge is not conclusive as the trial is not completed and this document was recovered during investigation of this case.
“Relevance will be looked out in totality of the case and this is a public document and it forms part of our case. It is premature for the defence to say it is irrelevant.
“The only circumstance where the CTC will be inadmissible is failure to comply with certification. It is relevant to the charges, as it was recovered in the course of investigation,” he said.
He, therefore, urged the court to admit it on the grounds that “it is relevant to the case.”
In her ruling, Justice Dada held that “The only issue is that it is not relevant for now; it is not tied to any of the six counts; so, it is hereby rejected.”
When asked how he knew the second defendant, the witness stated that “In the course of investigation, it was revealed that AMCON opened a loan account for Arik and assigned an account officer so as to monitor the payment of loan purchased by AMCON.
“The account officer was invited and also requested that he come with the statement of loan account of Arik Air receivership.
“He came with the CTC of the loan account signed by him and Justin Akume. It was submitted to the Commission and he wrote a statement to that effect.
“The essence of that statement was for us to see if the receiver manager was servicing the loan, which was the sole reason and purpose for appointing a receiver or a receiver manager.”
The prosecution counsel, thereafter, sought to tender the asset management loan account statement certified by AMCON and the EFCC.
Justice Dada marked and admitted them as exhibit P49.
Also, when asked what exhibit P49 showed, he said “it was the Arik account in AMCON, where receivership is servicing the loan. It showed that Arik went into receivership.”
According to the witness, “The account was to start reading from the date of inception but there is no evidence of servicing the loan. It kept accruing interest and the receiver manager refused to service the loans. The 1st defendant took over from someone, but did not service the loan.
“As at the time of investigation, it was not serviced and AMCON had to write a demand notice to the receiver manager, stating that they were not paying.”
Justice Dada adjourned the case till February 26, 2026.
