Judiciary
Alleged ₦76bn, $31.5m Fraud: Court Adjourns Trial of Ex-AMCON MD, Ahmed Kuru, Others till June 25
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.
Judiciary
Alleged 184.5kg Cocaine: Court Dismisses KC Luxury’s Suit Challenging Detention Order
A Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed an application by Afolabi Michael Kazeem seeking to overturn an order extending his detention for 30 days over his alleged involvement in the trafficking of 184.5 kilogrammes of cocaine.
The court held that the detention extension order granted on August 20, 2026, was properly issued and backed by the Constitution and relevant drug-control laws.
Kazeem, popularly known as KC Luxury, through his lawyer, Abdulakeem Labi-Lawal, SAN, had asked the court to set aside or strike out the order, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to extend his detention.
The lawyer contended that only a Magistrate Court could issue a remand order under Sections 293 to 299 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, describing the detention extension as an unlawful interference with the suspect’s constitutional right to personal liberty.
However, the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), through its lawyer, Abu Ibrahim, dismissed the argument as a misconception of the nature of the order granted by the court.
Abu maintained that the August 20 order was not a remand order under the ACJA but an extension of detention granted to enable the relevant agency to conduct detailed investigations into the alleged drug-trafficking offence.
According to the ruling, Kazeem was arrested on August 13, 2026, at the departure hall of the Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos, while allegedly attempting to travel to Paris, France.
The NDLEA had told the court that the suspect’s arrest followed the seizure of 184.5kg of cocaine at DHL in Ikeja, Lagos, with the agency alleging that Kazeem, popularly known as KC Luxury, was connected to the shipment.
Delivering judgment on the application on Thursday, Justice Aluko held that Sections 293 to 299 of the ACJA, which deal with remand proceedings, were not applicable to the case before the court.
The judge also held that the court has “exclusive” jurisdiction over drug-related matters by virtue of Section 251(1)(m) of the Constitution and Section 26(1) of the NDLEA Act.
The judge further held that the evidence presented by the NDLEA established reasonable suspicion of a drug-related offence, justifying the temporary deprivation of liberty under Section 35 of the Constitution.
Justice Aluko consequently dismissed KC Luxury’s application, holding that it constituted an abuse of court process and lacked merit.
Article
POLITICS AND LAWYERS: PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH – JUSTICE TAIWO (RTD.)
I am a lawyer. I studied law and have remained in the practice of law in memory of my late mother, who paid for me to study law at Holborn Law Tutors in the UK. I eventually continued my legal education at the University of Ibadan and graduated from there. She paid almost £7,000 upfront for one year, which was the total tuition fee for one year at that private law school. I will be eternally grateful to her. May her soul continue to rest in perfect peace. We all know what the exchange rate would be today.
In her memory, I decided to remain in the practice of law throughout my legal practice and thereafter, even until now. I tried my hand at property marketing at one time, but I had to drop it, even though I made some money from it. I stopped because it was affecting my legal practice.
There is nothing you do, from my point of view, outside your profession that will not affect your profession. Politics is one of them. Politics itself is an art and a profession, but I must add that, if it is truly for the people and the betterment of the people, it is a good one.
One of the most respected politicians in this country was Chief Obafemi Awolowo, of blessed memory. He practised law and politics successfully, but he was more of a politician. He used his knowledge of law to better the lot of so many people during his lifetime, and, till today, his name remains a reference point in using politics to serve humanity.
Mahatma Gandhi was first a lawyer before he became a politician to serve his people. His name is known more in politics than in law.
Chief F.R.A. Williams was a politician until he dropped politics to devote his entire life to law. He was not a crossbreed. His pathological devotion to law can be seen and read in the political history of Nigeria. In legal practice, to which he committed his entire life after publicly renouncing politics, his invaluable impact is evident in law books, legal records and law reports. He was an enigma and an icon who will forever be remembered, like others too numerous to name, who stayed in the service of law.
The lawyer is meant to be the beacon of society. The lawyer’s creed is to ensure that society is governed according to the law. Chief Gani Fawehinmi was the people’s lawyer. He used the law to better the lot of society. His foray into politics was disastrous because the perception of the lawyer in practice and the lawyer in politics are not symbiotic. They are strange bedfellows.
The people may hail the lawyer in law, but not the lawyer in politics. The ingredients you add to the soup that make a lawyer are different from the ingredients you add to the soup that make a politician. Femi Falana, SAN, my dear friend, was in the same boat as the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi. I feel him more in law now than when he did both.
A lawyer is known to keep to his or her word. Robert Traver, in his book The Anatomy of Murder, stated thus:
“That’s what makes the practice of law, like prostitution, one of the last of the unpredictable professions—both employ the seductive arts, both try to display their wares to best advantage and both must pretend enthusiastically to woo total strangers.”
Joseph Story lived from 1779 to 1845. He was an American lawyer, politician and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1812 until his death in 1845. He stated thus:
“I will not say….that ‘The law will admit of no rival’, but I will say that it is a jealous mistress, and requires a long and constant courtship. It is not to be won by trifling favours…”
Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862) was not a lawyer. He was an American essayist, poet and philosopher. He said:
“The lawyer’s truth is not Truth, but consistency, or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrongdoing.”
I have gone through the lawyer’s creed, which is to uphold the rule of law, personal dignity and independence; to offer faithfulness, competence, diligence and good judgment while providing vigorous and honest representation without sacrificing professional ethics; to practise with fairness, integrity and civility, avoiding malicious tactics, unnecessary delays or abusive discovery; to show profound respect, candour and courtesy, ensuring that the search for truth and justice remains uncompromised; to the court or tribunal; to make justice accessible to the poor; and to protect the legal profession as a noble calling rather than a mere business.
I have gone this far in order to buttress the topic for discussion. The practice of law and politics can never converge. You cannot be a master of both. You can be successful in both, no doubt, but along the way, there are sacrifices that will most likely be at cross-purposes with the law.
Very few lawyers, like Chief F.R.A. Williams, of blessed memory, have sacrificed politics for law. The political lawyer will criticise anything, even when the law is clear that, without evidence, you are not expected to speculate.
Nowadays, many lawyers in politics take to the airwaves and the print media, especially in this era of social media, to generalise when making statements. How can a lawyer, trained in the practice of law, make general statements on any topic, especially these days when the judiciary, even in retirement, has become a topic for discussion without any evidence? How can people make general statements about Senior Advocates of Nigeria or lawyers generally?
It is pathetic that those who ought to know, by virtue of their level of education, professional qualifications and recognition in the legal community, are more guilty of this. How can a lawyer remain silent even when injustice happens in front of him and behind him, too, but he keeps quiet?
Many keep quiet these days because they want to satisfy their paymasters, even when it is glaring that the legal profession is suffering from their silence and/or complicity and complacency. These days, many voice personal opinions without let or hindrance for personal and political reasons. Some attack their professional colleagues, even the judiciary, when they cannot get what they want, but they must vent their anger on someone. Some are paid to attack or bring down their fellow colleagues, whether at the Bar or on the Bench.
I like the Yoruba language a lot. I am sorry I will not be able to interpret the idioms I will use:
“Tó bá máa jẹ Oshakala, jẹ Oshakala; tó bá máa jẹ Oshokolo, jẹ Oshokolo. Oshakala, Oshokolo kò yẹ ọmọ ènìyàn.”
“Arítení mo ń wí, àfi àpáàdì bó tiẹ̀ mọ́lẹ̀.”
“Kò sí ẹni tí a máa sí idi ẹ̀, tí a kò ní bá ẹ̀ẹ̀pà níbẹ̀.”
Apologies to those who will read this who are not Yoruba, or those who are Yoruba but do not understand these idioms.
To those who criticise, not out of holiness per se, not out of being a “straight” lawyer or simply out of a desire to be fair, but generalise in order to look good or elicit unmerited applause, look in the mirror and think back to whether you have not done anything you accuse others of doing.
In writing or criticising generally, come out, but most importantly, PRACTISE WHAT YOU PREACH BEFORE YOU CRITICISE.
Judiciary
Appeal Court Affirms Ex-NEXIM Bank MD Orya’s 490-Year Jail Term for ₦2.4bn Fraud
-
Health1 year ago
Nigerian nurses stage seven‑day warning strike over pay, staffing
-
Energy1 year agoDangote Refinery to deploy 4,000 gas‑powered trucks for distribution
-
Economy1 year agoNigeria approves plan to refinance ₦4tn power-sector debt
-
Education1 year agoJAMB sets 2025/26 university cut‑off at 150, bars under‑16
-
Entertainment1 year agoSean Kingston sentenced to 3½ years in prison over $1 million fraud
-
Crime & Justice7 months agoBREAKING: Two Chinese Directors Jailed 46 Years Each Over ₦3.4bn, $2.5m Crypto Fraud in Lagos
-
Business7 months agoNigeria Revenue Service Collects ₦28.3trn in 2025, Sets ₦40.7trn Target for 2026
-
Crime & Justice8 months agoPolice Arrest 24-Year-Old Over ₦48.5m Romance Fraud in Lagos
