The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has told the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja that Arik Air was not indebted to Union Bank of Nigeria Plc when the airline was placed under receivership.
Naija News understands that an EFCC Investigator, Bawa Usman Kaltungo, made the assertion while testifying in the ongoing trial of former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation off Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, and four other defendants over an alleged 76 billion naira fraud.
Kaltungo, who is the Director of the EFCC Lagos Zonal Directorate 2 and the fourth prosecution witness, told Justice Mojisola Dada that investigations revealed that the debt allegedly used to justify the airline’s receivership did not exist.
However, the court also admitted AMCON board resolutions tendered by Kuru’s lawyer, Uyi Giwa-Osagie, to challenge the witness’s claim that the former AMCON boss unilaterally approved the appointment of a receiver-manager for the airline.
Documents by the defence were admitted despite the prosecution’s objection to their relevance, with the court holding that they emanated from AMCON’s board as a corporate body and were duly certified in accordance with Section 104 of the Evidence Act.
During cross-examination by Giwa-Osagie, counsel to the second defendant, Kaltungo said he headed the EFCC team that investigated the petition concerning Arik Air.
He told the court that he had informed AMCON’s top management at a meeting that the airline was not indebted to Union Bank and that the appointment of a receiver-manager to take control of the company was defective.
“The foundation for the appointment of a receivership over Arik Air was fraudulent and faulty. There was no bad debt; it does not exist,” the witness said.
The testimony came amid allegations surrounding the handling of Arik Air’s loan obligations, its takeover by AMCON and transactions involving the airline’s assets.
During the cross-examination, Kaltungo maintained that Kuru, as AMCON’s managing director and chief executive officer, had extensive powers and had unilaterally sanctioned the appointment of a receiver-manager over Arik Air.
Giwa-Osagie challenged that account by tendering AMCON board resolutions intended to demonstrate that the receivership decision was taken at the corporate level rather than solely by Kuru.
The prosecution objected to the admissibility of the documents, arguing that they were too remote to the issues before the court.
However, Giwa-Osagie submitted that the documents were relevant to determining his client’s culpability in the alleged offences.
He argued that Kuru was not standing trial over the propriety of AMCON’s power to appoint a receiver-manager but over the specific allegations contained in the charge sheet.
The defence counsel maintained that the board resolutions were necessary to establish the circumstances surrounding the decision and challenge the witness’s account of Kuru’s role.
He further argued that the documents were public records that could properly be tendered from the Bar.
In her ruling, Justice Dada upheld the relevance and admissibility of the documents.
The judge held that the documents emanated from AMCON’s board as a corporate body and had been duly certified in accordance with Section 104 of the Evidence Act.
Recall that the EFCC instituted the case following a petition by human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, on behalf of Arik Air’s promoters and shareholders over the airline’s receivership and related transactions.
The defendants are Kuru; Kamilu Alaba Omokide, a former receiver-manager of Arik Air; Captain Roy Ilegbodu, the airline’s chief executive officer; Union Bank of Nigeria Plc; and Super Bravo Limited.
They are facing a six-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing and abuse of office.
Join the conversation
Comments
Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.