Loading ...LAGOS, NIGERIA — The ongoing trial of the former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, and others over an alleged ₦76 billion and $31.5 million fraud took a dramatic turn on Thursday, June 25, 2026.
The fourth prosecution witness (PW4), Bawa Usman Kaltungo, a Director at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), insisted before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos Special Offences Court in Ikeja that the dismantling of an Arik Air aircraft was completely unlawful.
The aircraft in question—a Boeing identified by registration number 5N-JEA (Serial Number 15058)—was valued at approximately $31.5 million before it was torn down.
The Charges at a Glance
Ahmed Kuru is facing a six-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing, and abuse of office. He is being prosecuted by the EFCC alongside:
- Kamilu Alaba Omokide (Former Receiver-Manager of Arik Air)
- Captain Roy Ilegbodu (Former CEO of Arik Air under Receivership)
- Union Bank of Nigeria Plc
- Super Bravo Limited
The prosecution’s case relies heavily on two major alleged financial infractions:
| Count Focus | Alleged Act | Amount Involved |
| Union Bank Loan Discrepancy | Making false statements to AMCON in 2011 regarding Arik Air’s performing loans to induce an unwarranted sale. | ₦71,000,000,000.00 |
| Asset Diversion to NG Eagle | Fraudulently converting Arik Air property in 2022 to fund and establish a startup airline, NG Eagle. | ₦4,900,000,000.00 |
Clash Over the $31.5m Aircraft Teardown
During cross-examination by the defence counsel, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN), the witness was confronted with documents suggesting that JEM Leasing Limited—the purported owners of the aircraft—had authorized the teardown.
Kaltungo firmly rejected the defense’s position, questioning the authenticity and evidential value of the documents. He pointed out to the court that the supposed authorization letter was not written on the official letterhead of JEM Leasing Limited. He maintained that despite the defense’s documents, the EFCC’s findings regarding the illegality of the dismantling remained unchanged.
Receivership vs. Ownership: Who Owns Arik Air?
Answering questions regarding the ownership structure of the airline, the EFCC investigator clarified the legal limits of an AMCON receivership.
Kaltungo stated that while Arik Air had been placed under receivership, ownership of the airline remained vested in its shareholders, not the Federal Government or the receiver-manager.
“A receiver-manager 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 the recovery of secured obligations,” Kaltungo explained.
He added that while a receiver-manager has broader powers than an ordinary receiver—including the power to continue operating the business—the company itself remains a distinct, separate legal entity. Consequently, the petition that triggered the EFCC investigation was filed by the shareholders, who remain the beneficial owners.
Diverted Funds and Legal Standpoints
On the issue of the ₦4.9 billion diversion, Kaltungo reiterated that intelligence obtained from Arik Air’s Chief Financial Officer under receivership showed that the money was systematically moved to set up NG Eagle instead of being used to offset Arik’s outstanding loan obligations. He further confirmed that AMCON held a majority stake in NG Eagle based on directives from Kuru.
When confronted by the defense with a Court of Appeal judgment that had set aside an earlier Federal High Court ruling challenging the receivership, Kaltungo maintained that appellate court decisions did not alter the airline’s ownership status or absolve the defendants of how the assets were managed.
What Comes Next?
Earlier in the trial, Kaltungo definitionally described a public officer as someone who must not act in a manner detrimental to the office they occupy. However, when asked if the 3rd defendant, Capt. Roy Ilegbodu, qualified as a public officer, the witness noted that the records were unclear, as some documents described him as a “technical adviser” while others labeled him “Chief Executive Officer.”
The court admitted several documents regarding the company’s shareholding structure and receivership records as Exhibits P69 through P76.
Justice Mojisola Dada subsequently adjourned the matter to July 7, 2026, for the hearing of pending applications, and fixed October 26, 27, 28, and 29, 2026, for the full continuation of the trial.
