Arik Receivership: Court upholds relevance of documents, admits them as evidence showing corporate decision
By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
The ongoing criminal proceeding involving the former Managing Director/CEO of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), and others, resumed on Monday October 26 before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos State with the continuation of cross examination of 4th witness, Mr Bawa Usman Kaltungo (PW4) by 2nd defendant’s counsel Uyi Giwa-Osagie.
When the was called for hearing, Dr Wahab Shittu (SAN) leading other lawyers announced appearance for the prosecution, Akintola Ogunlewe Esq announced appearance for the 1st and 3rd defendants, Uyi Giwa-Osagie Esq. represented 2nd defendant, Emmanuel Kolajo Esq announced appearance for the 5th defendant while Oluwa Pelunmi Ojo appeared for the 4th defendant.
Dr Shittu (SAN) told the court that the day’s business is the continuation of the cross examination of (PW4) Mr Bawa Usman Kaltungo.
The cross examination was led by counsel to the 2nd defendant.
The witness told the court that he is testifying as the head of the AMCON desk in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the head of EFCC investigating team.
In the course of the cross examination, the witness stated that a petition was written on behalf of the directors and shareholders of Arik Air through a counsel Femi Falana(SAN). It was addressed to the EFCC and was submitted for investigation. However the witness said he could not remember the date the petition was submitted.
Answering one of the questions under cross examination by Giwa-Osagie, , the witness maintained that the 2nd defendant Mr Ahmed Kuru
In answer to another question, the Prosecution Witness 4 (PW4), under cross-examination, maintained that the 2nd defendant, Mr Ahmed Kuru, had unfettered powers as Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of AMCON, and unilaterally sanctioned Arik Air receivership.
To counter and discountenance PW4’s earlier testimony under cross-examination that the 2nd defendant solely sanctioned Arik Receivership, Mr Uyi Giwa-Osagie tendered in evidence the Board Resolutions of AMCON to prove otherwise. However, the Prosecution objected to the admissibility of the documents, insisting that the documents were “too remote” to be admitted by the Court.
While urging the court to admit the evidence tendered, Giwa-Osagie on behalf of the 2nd defendant, argued and made submissions to the effect that the 2nd defendant is not on trial for the propriety of the power to appoint a Receiver but is facing other critical charges as contained in the Charge Sheet. He argued that these documents go to the root of the trial to prove the innocence of the 2nd defendant. Besides, he further submitted that the documents in question are public documents being tendered from the Bar.
After listening to arguments from both sides on the relevance and admissibility of the documents, the Court delivered a Bench Ruling upholding the relevance of the documents and admitted them as evidence. In its ruling, the Court stated that the documents emanated from the Board of AMCON as a Body Corporate and were duly certified in accordance with Section 104 of the Evidence Act.
Recall that the EFCC had dragged the former MD of AMCON, and others to Court following a petition by Mr Femi Falana SAN on behalf of the promoters/Shareholders of Arik Air involving the ex-AMCON MD/CEO, Ahmed Kuru, Kamilu Omokide, a former Receiver Manager of Arik Air Ltd; Captain Roy Ilegbodu, the airline’s CEO, Union Bank Ltd; and Super Bravo Ltd.
Trials continue tomorrow, 27th October 2026.
