Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, adjourned further hearing in the alleged ₦76 billion and $31.5 million fraud trial involving a former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, and others till June 25, 2026.

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 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 counsel to the first and third defendants, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan, SAN, at Tuesday’s proceedings, the fourth prosecution witness (PW4), Usman Bawa Kaltungo, stated that AMCON only purchases secured non-performing loans from banks and not all categories of debts.

The prosecution team, led by Wahab Shittu, SAN, also opposed the admissibility of certain letters allegedly written by the first and third defendants to the EFCC on the grounds that the documents were photocopies and had not been certified.

“It is a photocopy. On that basis, it is inadmissible; it lacks certification. If they intend to rely on them, then they should have certified them,” the prosecution argued.

Responding, Osipitan urged the court to reserve the objection until the stage of final written addresses.

In her ruling, Justice Dada held that since the original copies were with the EFCC and had been identified by the witness, they should be produced in court whenever necessary.

The court consequently directed that the original copies be produced on the next adjourned date, while the documents were admitted and marked as Exhibit P53.

At the prompting of the defence counsel, the witness read portions of the letter from AMCON to the EFCC seeking intervention to avert the arraignment of some AMCON officials.

According to the witness, the letter stated that all actions taken by AMCON and the receiver managers were decisions of the corporation’s Board of Directors arising from official meetings.

When asked whether he had seen any reply from the EFCC acknowledging that the first and third defendants acted in their official capacities, the witness replied:

“That is their opinion. To the best of my knowledge, that letter was addressed to the Chairman. It is not all correspondence that the EFCC replies to. I neither saw nor knew of any reply.”

Asked whether AMCON as an institution was charged in the matter, the witness responded in the negative.

On whether any funds were traced to the personal accounts of the first and third defendants as proceeds of the alleged fraud, the witness said:

“None.”

While referring the witness to Exhibit P17, a petition written by Falana & Falana Chambers, the defence counsel asked whether Arik Air was already in receivership when the petition was written.

The witness responded that the petition, dated April 27, 2022, was written after Arik Air had gone into receivership, adding that the shareholders authorised Falana & Falana to act on behalf of the airline.

Asked whether he had documents showing that the Nigerian debts in question were being serviced as and when due, the witness answered in the affirmative and tendered documents in support, adding that no bank had presented any contrary evidence.

The defence subsequently tendered a judgment of the Federal High Court earlier shown to the witness.

The document was admitted and marked as Exhibit P54.

When asked to identify the plaintiffs in Exhibit P54, the witness named Sir Johnson Arumemi-Ikhide and Mary Arumemi-Ikhide as shareholders.

Asked whether AMCON had petitioned the EFCC against Arik before the petition by Falana & Falana Chambers, the witness stated that he could not confirm what he had not seen unless it was shown to him.

During proceedings, the defence also asked whether the witness was aware that Arumemi-Ikhide had, in another matter, alleged that the EFCC compelled him under duress to make statements.

The witness answered in the negative.

At that point, the defence tendered court processes filed in 2025, which were admitted and marked as Exhibit P55.

After reading the exhibit, defence counsel insisted that Arumemi-Ikhide signed the documents under duress.

However, the witness maintained that he personally obtained his statement from start to finish and that there was nowhere in the statement where such an allegation was made.

“His statements are before the court. I do not know what he may have said elsewhere,” he said.

When the defence drew the witness’ attention to the fact that NG Eagle Limited had not been discharged from the offence alleged in Count Two of the charges, the witness explained that it was because the airline had not been sold.

“The ₦4.9 billion was expended based on the breakdown provided to the Commission by the Chief Finance Officer of Arik Air Receivership on how the money was utilised in establishing NG Eagle,” he stated.

When confronted with the suggestion that his testimony was based solely on hearsay, the witness disagreed.

“My evidence is informed not only by statements made but also by findings from investigations,” he said.

Asked into whose account the money was transferred, the witness stated:

“We interviewed the person who bought it, and they confirmed that payment was made to AMCON.”

On whether he was aware that one of the shareholders was merely a nominee shareholder, the witness replied that the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) documents described the individual simply as a shareholder.

During further cross-examination, Osipitan argued that the ₦4.9 billion belonged to Arik Air and not to Arumemi-Ikhide, a shareholder, as allegedly suggested in the charge.

The witness, however, maintained that the funds were revenue generated from Arik Air’s operations while in receivership and ought to have been applied toward servicing the airline’s loan obligations.

“In Count Three, the money was converted to the use of Magawshi Ali Mohammed, but his statement was not taken,” the witness added.

He explained that efforts were made to contact Mohammed, who was said to be outside the country, and that he eventually responded via email.

According to the witness, Mohammed stated in the email that the funds were meant for a trip to the Bahamas, although no documentary evidence was produced to support the claim.

Asked whether the information formed part of the investigation report, the witness answered in the affirmative.

When shown the investigation report in evidence, the witness read portions of pages 15 and 16, but acknowledged that the email itself had not been tendered before the court.

The witness also confirmed awareness of Arik Air’s Technical Advisory Committee headed by Dr. Harold Demuren, of which Mohammed was allegedly a member.

While the defence insisted that the Bahamas trip was official, the witness maintained that no supporting documents or correspondence were provided to investigators.

“For any official trip, there must be documents and correspondence authorising it. These were requested but not provided,” he said.

The witness added that the Chief Finance Officer was invited and asked to produce relevant correspondence but failed to do so.

Thereafter, the defence tendered documents seeking approval for a trip as internal memoranda.

Shittu objected to their admissibility, arguing that the documents were electronically generated and uncertified.

However, counsel to the first and third defendants countered that the documents were signed internal memoranda and not electronically generated records.

Justice Dada subsequently admitted the documents and marked them as Exhibits P56 to P59.

Asked what benefit Kamilu Alaba Omokide derived from the transaction, the witness said one share was allocated to him.

On whether there was any petition from JEM Leasing Limited, the witness replied in the negative.

“JEM owns the aircraft and leased it to Arik, but Arik itself submitted a petition,” he said.

The defence further stated that Arik had defaulted in rental payments to JEM and tendered a letter from the company.

Although the prosecution objected to its admissibility on grounds of lack of certification, Justice Dada admitted the document and marked it as Exhibit P60.

The case was thereafter adjourned till June 25 and July 7, 2026, for continuation of trial.