Court upholds AMCON control of Arik Air as EFCC witness testifies
By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
The ongoing Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)/Arik case before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos State, resumed on Thursday with the continuation of cross-examination of the 4th Prosecution witness (PW4), Mr. Bawa Usman Kaltungo, by Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) counsel to the 1st and 3rd defendants.
Recall that in a recent judgement, in which the complainant, Sir Johnson Arumemi-Ikhide in the criminal trial had earlier obtained to establish the assertion that AMCON receivership on Arik Air was premature and unlawful, has been set aside by the Court of Appeal.
The Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Court of Appeal judgement, which was tendered in evidence under Cross-examination of the PW4 and thereafter admitted in evidence before the court, further reaffirmed the lawful nature of the appointment of the Receiver-Manager on Arik by AMCON as well as the duties assigned to him in that capacity.
The EFCC had dragged Mr. Ahmed Kuru, the former Managing Director/CEO of Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), and others to court following a petition by Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) on behalf of the promoter of Arik Air, Sir Johnson Arumemi-Ikhide.
The criminal trial also included a former Receiver Manager of Arik Air Ltd, Kamilu Omokhide, Captain Roy Ilegbodu, the airline’s CEO, Union Bank Ltd; and Super Bravo Ltd.
As the cross-examination of EFCC PW4 Kaltungo progressed, fresh facts emerged during the proceedings that a Court of Law had earlier affirmed and declared lawful the tear-down of one of Arik’s aircraft in contention by AMCON and its appointed Receiver Manager. It is imperative to note that the Prosecution had alleged that the teardown of the aircraft is unlawful simply because AMCON and its appointed Receiver-Manager on Arik Air did not possess the legal authority to do so.
This new development emerged from facts reiterated in the judgement delivered by Hon. Justice Owoeye of the Federal High Court, in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1141/2024, initiated by Captain Samuel Caulcrick on behalf of all members of staff, officers of Cargo Airlines Limited, Captain Isiaka Oyeshina Akinfenwa, against the EFCC.
Both Captain Samuel and Captain Akinfenwa, along with their staff and officials, were duly contracted by the owners of the embattled aircraft to tear down the aircraft on their behalf. This judgement, which Certified True Copy (CTC) was admitted in evidence by the Court, totally controverts and serves as a rebuttal of the indictment and charges levelled against the 1st and 3rd defendants , Kamilu Omokhide & Capt. Roy Illegbodu by the EFCC/Prosecution.
Following the teardown, the EFCC arrested and detained Captain Caulcrick, who thereafter went to court to challenge his arrest and unlawful detention, to which the court ruled that the EFCC erred and ordered the EFCC to pay a fine of N5million to Captain Caulcrick.
Additionally, the court also admitted in evidence the Board resolution of AMCON, which authorised and ratified the establishment, transfer, and allotment of shares of NG Eagle to designated persons, including the 3rd defendant. Furthermore, the prosecution witness, under cross-examination, admitted that the 1st and 3rd defendants did not enjoy any pecuniary benefits from all these transactions.
A major focus of Thursday’s proceedings was the prosecution’s allegation that Kuru, Omokide and Ilegbodu authorised the teardown and destruction of an aircraft, identified as 5N-JEA, Serial Number 15058, valued at approximately $31.5 million.
According to one of the charges, the defendants allegedly abused their offices by authorising the dismantling of the aircraft in a manner prejudicial to the economic interests of Arik Air and the country.
During cross-examination by Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN), counsel to Kuru and Ilegbodu, Kaltungo acknowledged that despite extensive investigations, no proceeds from the teardown were traced to the personal accounts of either Kuru or Ilegbodu.
“I have said it before that no money was traced to their personal accounts,” the EFCC witness told the court.
However, despite conceding that investigators did not establish any direct personal financial benefit to the defendants, Kaltungo maintained that the dismantling of the aircraft was nevertheless illegal.
According to him, the act itself constituted an illegality, irrespective of whether any financial proceeds could be linked to the accused persons.
The witness was subsequently confronted with documents tendered by the defence, which allegedly showed that JEM Leasing Limited, said to be the owner of the aircraft, had authorised the teardown.
Relying on the documents, the defence challenged the prosecution’s claim that the dismantling was carried out without authorisation.
But Kaltungo questioned the authenticity and evidential value of the documents, arguing that the purported authorisation letter was not written on the official letterhead of JEM Leasing Limited.
He maintained that the EFCC’s position remained unchanged despite the documents tendered by the defence.
The proceedings also examined issues relating to Arik Air’s receivership and ownership structure.
Kaltungo told the court that although Arik Air had been placed under AMCON receivership, ownership of the airline remained vested in its shareholders.
Meanwhile further hearing in the matter has been adjourned to July 7, 2026, for hearing of an interlocutory application by the 2nd Defendant. Justice Dada also reserved October 26, 27, 28, and 29 for continuation of the trial.
