Alleged ₦76bn, $31.5m Fraud: Witness Says Kuru Approved Arik Air Receivership Without Prior AMCON Board Approval

The trial of a former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, and four others over an alleged ₦76 billion and $31.5 million fraud continued on Monday, October 26, 2026, with the fourth prosecution witness (PW4), Bawa Usman Kaltungo, telling Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, that Kuru approved the receivership of Arik Air without obtaining prior approval from AMCON’s Board.

Kuru, alongside Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Roy Ilegbodu, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc and Super Bravo Limited, is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) 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 the unwarranted sale of Arik Air loans and bank guarantees with Union Bank, made false statements to the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) regarding Arik Air Limited’s performing loans, following which you transferred a bogus figure of ₦71,000,000,000.00 (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 thereabouts, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, fraudulently converted to the use of NG Eagle Limited the sum of ₦4,900,000,000.00 (Four Billion, Nine Hundred Million Naira), property of Arik Air Limited.”

During cross-examination by Uyi Giwa-Osagie, counsel to Kuru, at the resumed hearing on Monday, Kaltungo, who is currently the Acting Zonal Director of the EFCC’s Lagos Zonal Directorate 2, maintained that Kuru, as AMCON’s Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, exercised extensive powers within the Corporation and approved the receivership arrangement without first obtaining the Board’s approval.

Kaltungo, a former Head of the AMCON Desk when the investigation commenced, told the court that investigations revealed that a receiver-manager was appointed for Arik Air before the matter was presented to AMCON’s Board for approval. He added that the appointments went beyond what the Board subsequently approved.

Kaltungo further told the court that investigators requested documents linking the appointment of the receiver-manager to a prior decision of AMCON’s Board, but the documents were not produced during the investigation.

The witness explained that the EFCC’s investigation was initiated following a petition written by counsel to Arik Air’s directors and shareholders, Femi Falana, SAN, and addressed to the EFCC Chairman.

When presented with a copy of the petition, the witness identified it as the document received by the Commission.

He told the court that “the petition was dated April 27, 2023, received by the office of the EFCC Chairman on May 3, 2023, and forwarded to the Director of Operations on May 12, 2023.”

He further testified that on May 22, 2023, the Commission directed the then Head of the AMCON Desk to investigate the allegations.

Kaltungo said he supervised the investigation alongside other investigators and conducted interviews with persons considered relevant to the matter.

According to him, the AMCON Desk was responsible for investigating cases referred to it involving AMCON, among other matters, adding that “other desks also investigate AMCON-related cases.”

He further testified that the EFCC’s investigation focused on individuals whose actions were relevant to the matter rather than specifically on the positions they held.

He told the court that the investigation report tendered in evidence contained the EFCC’s findings based on the information and evidence available to the Commission at the conclusion of the investigation.

Addressing the circumstances surrounding the receivership, Kaltungo said investigators sought to establish how AMCON came to appoint a receiver-manager for Arik Air.

According to him, those responsible for the appointment explained that the airline had an outstanding bad loan.

He said, however, that the investigation found the claim underlying the receivership arrangement to be false.

“The evidence gathered by the Commission did not establish that the Nigerian government had paid money to acquire Arik Air or its debt,” he said.

He added that a receiver-manager was expected to take control of a company placed under receivership and protect and preserve its assets.

Kaltungo also stated that although AMCON had the power to appoint a receiver for an indebted company, such power had to be exercised in accordance with due process.

He further told the court that the investigation was not limited to the appointment of the receiver-manager but also covered other allegations contained in the petition.

He identified Oluseye Opasanya, SAN, and Kamilu Alaba Omokide, the second defendant in the case, as the two individuals who had served as receiver-managers of Arik Air.

“Opasanya ceased to be the receiver-manager in 2019, while Omokide was the receiver-manager at the time of the investigation,” he said.

When confronted by counsel to the first defendant with a document relating to Omokide’s appointment, Kaltungo observed that the copy presented to him was incomplete and had emanated from the Corporate Affairs Commission rather than AMCON.

He requested the deed of appointment issued by AMCON, which he said had been submitted to the court as an exhibit.

He also told the court that the individuals named in the petition worked under the receiver-manager and that responsibility for their actions could arise in the circumstances of the case.

Responding to questions about AMCON’s role in the transaction, the witness maintained that the Corporation had been defrauded by Union Bank of Nigeria Plc over the alleged sale of Arik Air’s loans and bank guarantees.

He further stated that the investigation did not establish that AMCON had paid money to acquire Arik Air or its debt, adding that the Commission’s findings indicated that the Corporation had been misled into taking over what was presented as bad debt.

The court also heard arguments from the prosecution and defence counsel over documents containing resolutions of AMCON’s Board concerning the receivership.

Prosecution counsel, Wahab Shittu, SAN, argued that the central issue was whether AMCON’s Board had approved the appointment of a receiver-manager before the action was taken.

Shittu referred to documents tendered by the defence, including a Board resolution dated July 18, 2019, and other documents dated between two and five years after the receivership decision.

He argued that the documents were too remote from the decision under investigation to establish that the necessary approval had been obtained before the appointment.

Shittu maintained that the relevant Board approval ought to have been secured before the appointment or within a reasonable time, rather than two to five years after the decision had been made.

In response, Giwa-Osagie argued that the charges against his client related to the appointment of the receiver-manager and contended that the decisions in question had been made by AMCON’s Board.

He further argued that his client was the only Board member being prosecuted over the decisions.

In his response, Shittu clarified that the prosecution was not arguing that the documents were irrelevant but that they were too remote to establish prior approval for the decision being challenged.

Subsequently, counsel representing the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants stated that they had no objections to the seven documents tendered by counsel to the first defendant.

Justice Dada subsequently admitted the documents containing AMCON Board resolutions in evidence after hearing arguments from the prosecution and defence counsel.

The case was adjourned until Tuesday, October 27, 2026, for continuation of the trial.