No personal financial benefit traced to Ahmed Kuru, others in N76bn fraud case, EFCC witness admits
By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) 4th prosecution witness, Mr Bawa Usman Kaltungo, on Tuesday admitted before a Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, that EFCC investigators did not trace any part of the alleged N76 billion and $31.5 million fraud to the personal accounts of the former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, or the third defendant, Capt. Roy Ilegbodu.
Kaltungo who is a former Zonal Director of the Lagos Zonal Directorate of the EFCC made the disclosure while being cross-examined by counsel to Kuru and Ilegbodu, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN)
before the trial judge, Justice Mojisola Dada.
When asked whether he personally traced any financial proceeds or direct monetary benefit to Kuru, Kaltungo replied: “I did not trace any.”
The ex-AMCON CEO is facing trial alongside Mr Kamilu Omokide, the Receiver Manager of Arik Air; Capt. Roy Ilegbodu, the Managing Director of Arik Air, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, and Super Bravo Limited, following a petition by Mr Femi Falana (SAN), on behalf of the promoter of Arik Air Limited, Sir Johnson Arumemi-Ikide.
Contrary to his earlier testimony some weeks back, Kaltungo who is the fourth Prosecution Witness ( PW4) under Cross-Examination by Counsel to the First and Third defendants, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN), affirmed that the activities of the Receiver-Manager and that of the Arik CEO, both defendants in the case, were sanctioned by the Board of AMCON.
He also confirmed that Omokide, the first defendant and former Receiver-Manager of Arik Air, held only a single share in NG Eagle, adding that he did not derive any personal financial benefit from the airline’s sale.
Prof. Osipitan questioned why the EFCC proceeded with charges of officials without including AMCON in the case, despite acknowledging during investigation that no monetary benefit was traced to the accused persons.
The witness under cross -examination also admitted that one of the individuals alleged to have benefited from Arik Air’s management, identified as Mogaji, was not interviewed because he was outside the country at the time.
He said Mogaji later sent an email confirming receipt of benefits, which formed part of the EFCC’s report.
However, when asked to point out where it was contained in the report, the witness was unable to do so but promised to provide the said evidence.
The defence further tendered internal Arik Air documents which showed that the airline approved travel and related expenses for Mogaji, who served on its Advisory Committee headed by Dr. Dumeren.
The witness was also confronted with a letter allegedly written by AMCON to the EFCC Chairman approving certain decisions taken in relation to Arik Air’s management. In his response, the witness said he was unaware of the letter, noting that it was addressed to the EFCC Chairman and that the commission does not respond to all correspondences it receives.
Under further cross-examination, Kaltungo further admitted that the actions and decisions of the defendants over the affairs of Arik Air (in-Receivership) were carried out in their different capacities as agents, privies, or subsidiaries of AMCON.
The EFCC witness further stated that Omokide, the 1st defendant in the case and the then Receiver-Manager of Arik, who held a single share in NG Eagle, a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) set up by AMCON to exit from its aviation toxic portfolio, did not derive any monetary benefits from the sale of NG Eagle. He added that the proceeds from the sale of NG Eagle went to AMCON, and not to any of the defendants.
Prof. Taiwo Osipitan who led the cross-examination of the witness queried why the EFCC did not include AMCON in the case, but rather decided to charge the defendants, who are representing the Federal Government of Nigeria, more so when investigation revealed that no monetary benefit was traced to any of them during the EFCC’s investigation.
In response, the witness said AMCON is an institution and that the first defendant acted in his capacity as Managing Director of the corporation.
He told the court that investigations conducted by the anti-graft agency were initiated following petitions and supported by documentary and technical evidence.
Kaltungo, said the Commission acted within the ambit of its statutory mandate in probing allegations involving company officials, shareholders, and corporate transactions said to have raised concerns of abuse of office, unauthorized dealings, and financial impropriety.
During his testimony, the EFCC former Zonal Director explained that the Commission does not commence investigations arbitrarily, stressing that petitions received by the agency are first reviewed before any investigative steps could be taken.
Under cross-examination, defence counsel further questioned the witness extensively on the existence of petitions, the authority of company officials, shareholder nominations, and the extent of authorization granted for some of the disputed transactions.
At this juncture, the trial judge, Justice Dada adjourned the matter till June 25 and July 7, 2026, for continuation of cross-examination.
