JamzNG Latest News, Gist, Entertainment in Nigeria
The fourth prosecution witness, PW4, Bawa Usman Kaltungo, in the alleged N76 billion and $31.5 million fraud case involving the former Managing Director of the Asset Management Company of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, and others, on Thursday, told Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offenses Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, that the dismantling of the Arik Air plane identified as 5N-JEA, with serial number 15058 and valued at $31.5 million, was unlawful.
Kuru, along with Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Roy Ilegbodu, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc and Super Bravo Limited, were tried by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on six counts bordering on conspiracy, theft 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 Honorable Court, with the aim of causing and/or encouraging the unwarranted sale of Arik Air loans and bank guarantees with Union Bank, made false representations to the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) regarding Arik Air Limited’s outstanding loans, which you then transferred the sum 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 the year 2022 or thereabouts, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, fraudulently converted the use of NG Eagle Limited in the amount of N4,900,000,000.00 (Four Billion, Nine Hundred Million Naira), belonging to Arik Air Limited.”
In the trial which continued on Thursday, Kaltungo during cross-examination by Prof. Taiwo Osipitan SAN, attorney for Kuru and Ilegbodu, said the dismantling of the plane was against the law.
When he was later confronted with documents submitted by the defense, which allegedly showed that JEM Leasing Limited, which was said to be the owner of the aircraft, had authorized the dismantling, Kaltungo questioned the authenticity and probative value of the documents, arguing that the authorization letters were not written on JEM Leasing Limited’s official letterhead.
He stressed that the EFCC’s position remained unchanged despite the documents being submitted by the defence.
READ ALSO: Against widespread support, PRP warns of creation of state police
While answering questions regarding Arik Air’s receivership and ownership structure, Kaltungo told the court that although Arik Air was placed under AMCON receivership, ownership of the airline remained in the hands of its shareholders.
According to him, the appointment of a receiving manager does not transfer ownership of the airline or its assets to the Federal Government.
He said the petition that triggered the EFCC investigation was filed by Arik Air shareholders, who remain the beneficial owners of the company despite the receivership arrangement.
According to him, even though the administrator-beneficiary takes over control and management of the company’s assets, the company itself remains a separate legal entity.
During the hearing, he told the court about the authority of the receiver-manager, stating that the designated person “is authorized to take possession of assets, preserve and protect them, collect rents and profits, realize securities on behalf of creditors, and manage the affairs of the company pending recovery of secured obligations.”
According to him, a managing receiver has broader authority than an ordinary receiver because the office holder is given the authority not only to look after the assets but also to continue running the business.
Additionally, while he was faced with legal decisions relating to Arik Air’s acceptance, including appeals court proceedings that reportedly set aside a previous Federal High Court decision challenging the acceptance arrangement, Kaltungo stated that such legal developments did not change Arik Air’s ownership status or affect the EFCC’s findings regarding the management of the airline’s assets.
On the NG Eagle issue, Kaltungo reiterated his previous testimony that investigations revealed that about N4.9 billion belonging to Arik Air was diverted for the establishment of NG Eagle instead of being used for outstanding loan obligations.
According to him, this information was obtained from the Chief Financial Officer of Arik Air under receivership who provided details of the transaction to investigators.
The witness further stated that AMCON holds majority shares in NG Eagle based on directives issued by the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.
Several additional documents originating from Arik Air in receivership have been submitted by the defense and accepted as evidence as Exhibits P71 to P76.
Earlier in the trial, Kaltungo explained his understanding of public officials as people who legally hold public office and have the authority to carry out the responsibilities attached to that position, emphasizing that such officials must not act to the detriment of the position they occupy.
When asked whether the third defendant, Ilegbodu, was a public official, the witness stated that there were documents showing that he was appointed as a technical advisor and other documents showing that he was acting as Chief Executive Officer, so this issue was not clear from the record before him.
The witness further told the court that Arik Air was a private entity before it was placed under the supervision of AMCON and that the aircraft involved in the case were not owned by the Federal Government or any state or local government authority.
Kaltungo also revealed that the petition that led to the investigation did not come from any government agency, but from the owner of the aircraft in question.
On further examination, the witness confirmed that the first and third defendants were neither shareholders nor directors of Super Bravo Limited.
The court also received documents relating to directors and share ownership structure as Exhibits P69 and P70.
Judge Dada adjourned the case until July 7, 2026 for a hearing on the petition which is still in process, and October 26, 27, 28 and 29, 2026 for a follow-up hearing.
