EFCC: Kuru Approved Arik Air Receivership Without Prior Board Approval, Witness Tells Court
A prosecution witness in the alleged N76 billion and $31.5 million fraud case involving former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, has told a Lagos court that Kuru approved the receivership of Arik Air without obtaining prior approval from the corporation’s board.
The witness, Bawa Usman Kaltungo, the acting Zonal Director of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Lagos Zonal Directorate 2, made the disclosure on Monday, October 26, 2026, during the continuation of the trial before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos.
Kuru is standing trial alongside Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Roy Ilegbodu, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc and Super Bravo Limited on a six-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing and abuse of office.
Testifying as the fourth prosecution witness (PW4), Kaltungo said investigations revealed that the appointment of a receiver-manager for Arik Air was made before the matter was presented to AMCON’s board for approval.
He further told the court that the appointments made exceeded what the board subsequently approved.
According to him, investigators requested documents establishing that the appointment had been authorised by a prior board decision, but such documents were not produced during the investigation.
The witness gave the testimony while being cross-examined by Uyi Giwa-Osagie, counsel to Kuru.
Kaltungo, a former Head of the AMCON Desk in Lagos when the investigation began, explained that the EFCC commenced its investigation following a petition by Femi Falana, SAN, counsel to Arik Air’s directors and shareholders.
He identified the petition in court, stating that it 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 added that the Commission directed the then Head of the AMCON Desk to investigate the allegations on May 22, 2023.
According to the witness, he supervised the investigation alongside other investigators and conducted interviews with individuals considered relevant to the case.
He explained that the investigation focused on the actions of the individuals involved rather than merely the positions they occupied.
EFCC Questions Basis for Receivership
Addressing the circumstances surrounding the receivership, Kaltungo said investigators sought to establish how AMCON came to appoint a receiver-manager for Arik Air.
He told the court that those responsible for the appointment explained that the airline had an outstanding bad loan.
However, he said the investigation found the claim underlying the receivership arrangement to be false.
The witness also stated that the evidence gathered by the Commission did not establish that the Federal Government had paid money to acquire Arik Air or its debt.
He explained that although AMCON had the authority to appoint a receiver for an indebted company, such power had to be exercised in accordance with due process.
According to him, the responsibility of a receiver-manager includes taking control of a company placed under receivership and protecting and preserving its assets.
Kaltungo further maintained that the investigation covered not only the appointment of the receiver-manager but also other allegations contained in the petition.
He identified Oluseye Opasanya, SAN, and Omokide as the two individuals who had served as receiver-managers of Arik Air.
He said Opasanya left the position in 2019, while Omokide was the receiver-manager when the investigation was conducted.
When shown a document relating to Omokide’s appointment, the witness observed that the copy was incomplete and originated from the Corporate Affairs Commission rather than AMCON.
He subsequently requested the deed of appointment issued by AMCON, which he said had already been tendered in court as an exhibit.
EFCC Alleges Union Bank Misled AMCON
Kaltungo also maintained that AMCON had been defrauded by Union Bank of Nigeria Plc over the alleged sale of Arik Air’s loans and bank guarantees.
He said the investigation indicated that AMCON had been misled into taking over what was presented as bad debt, adding that the Commission did not establish that the corporation paid money to acquire Arik Air or its debt.
One of the charges against Union Bank alleges that the bank made false statements to AMCON in connection with Arik Air’s performing loans, resulting in the transfer of an alleged bogus figure of N71 billion to the corporation in 2011.
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 allegations remain subject to determination by the court.
Defence, Prosecution Disagree Over Board Resolutions
During the proceedings, prosecution counsel Wahab Shittu, SAN, and defence counsel disagreed over documents containing resolutions of AMCON’s board concerning the receivership.
Shittu argued that the central issue was whether the board had approved the appointment of a receiver-manager before the decision was implemented.
He referred to documents tendered by the defence, including a board resolution dated July 18, 2019, and other documents made between two and five years after the receivership decision.
The prosecution counsel argued that the documents were too remote from the original decision to establish that prior approval had been obtained.
He maintained that the necessary approval should have been secured before the appointment or within a reasonable time afterward.
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 were made by AMCON’s board.
He also argued that Kuru was the only board member being prosecuted over the decisions.
Shittu subsequently clarified that the prosecution was not challenging the relevance of the documents but was questioning their ability to establish that approval had been obtained before the appointment.
Counsel representing the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants said they had no objections to the seven documents tendered by the first defendant’s counsel.
Justice Dada admitted the documents containing the board resolutions into evidence after hearing arguments from both sides.
The case was adjourned until Tuesday, October 27, 2026, for continuation of the trial.
