Alleged N76bn, $31.5m Fraud: Dismantling Of Arik Aircraft Was Illegal, Witness Insists
The fourth prosecution witness, PW4, Bawa Usman Kaltungo, in the alleged N76bn and $31.5m fraud case involving former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, and others, on Thursday, June 25, 2026, told Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, that the dismantling of an Arik Air aircraft identified as 5N-JEA, with serial number 15058 and valued at $31.5 million, was unlawful.
Kuru, alongside Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Roy Ilegbodu, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc and Super Bravo Limited, is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on a six-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing and abuse of office.
One of the counts reads:
“That you, Union Bank Nigeria Plc, sometime in 2011 or thereabouts, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with the intention of causing and/or inducing the unwarranted sale of Arik Air loans and bank guarantees with Union Bank, made false statements to the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) regarding Arik Air Limited’s performing loans, following which you transferred a bogus figure of N71,000,000,000.00 (Seventy-One Billion Naira) to AMCON.”
Another count reads:
“That you, Ahmed Lawal Kuru, Kamilu Alaba Omokide, as Receiver Manager of Arik Air Limited, and Captain Roy Ilegbodu, Chief Executive Officer of Arik Air Limited in Receivership, sometime in 2022 or thereabouts, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, fraudulently converted to the use of NG Eagle Limited the sum of N4,900,000,000.00 (Four Billion, Nine Hundred Million Naira), property of Arik Air Limited.”
At the resumed sitting on Thursday, Kaltungo, during the cross-examination by Prof. Taiwo Osipitan SAN, counsel to Kuru and Ilegbodu, said that the dismantling of the aircraft was unlawful.
When he 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, 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 presented by the defence.
While answering questions 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.
According to him, the appointment of a receiver-manager did not transfer ownership of the airline or its assets to the Federal Government.
He said the petition that triggered the EFCC investigation was filed by shareholders of Arik Air, who remained the beneficial owners of the company despite the receivership arrangement.
According to him, while a receiver-manager assumes control and management of a company’s assets, the company itself remains a separate legal entity.
During the proceedings, he told the court about the powers of a receiver-manager, stating that such an appointee “is authorised to take possession of assets, preserve and protect them, collect rents and profits, realise securities on behalf of creditors, and manage the affairs of the company pending the recovery of secured obligations.”
According to him, a receiver-manager possesses broader powers than an ordinary receiver because the office holder is empowered not only to preserve assets but also to continue operating the business.
Also, when he was confronted with judicial decisions relating to Arik Air’s receivership, including appellate court proceedings that reportedly set aside an earlier Federal High Court judgment challenging the receivership arrangement, Kaltungo maintained that those legal developments neither altered the ownership status of Arik Air nor affected the EFCC’s findings regarding the management of the airline’s assets.
On the issue of NG Eagle, Kaltungo reiterated his earlier testimony that investigations revealed that approximately N4.9 billion belonging to Arik Air was diverted towards the establishment of NG Eagle instead of being applied to outstanding loan obligations.
According to him, the information was obtained from the Chief Financial Officer of Arik Air under receivership, who provided investigators with a detailed breakdown of the transactions.
The witness further testified that AMCON held a majority stake in NG Eagle pursuant to directives issued by the Corporation’s Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer.
Several additional documents emanating from Arik Air under receivership were tendered by the defence and admitted in evidence as Exhibits P71 to P76.
Earlier in the proceedings, Kaltungo explained his understanding of a public officer as a person who legally occupies a public office and possesses the authority to discharge responsibilities attached to that office, stressing that such an officer must not act in a manner detrimental to the office occupied.
When asked whether the third defendant, Ilegbodu, was a public officer, the witness stated that there were documents indicating his appointment as a technical adviser and others showing him acting as Chief Executive Officer, making the issue unclear from the records before him.
The witness further told the court that Arik Air was a private entity before it was placed under AMCON receivership and that the aircraft involved in the case were neither owned by the Federal Government nor any state or local government authority.
Kaltungo also disclosed that the petition which led to the investigation did not originate from any government institution but from the owners of the aircraft involved.
Under further questioning, the witness confirmed that the first and third defendants were neither shareholders nor directors of Super Bravo Limited.
The court equally admitted documents relating to directors and shareholding structures as Exhibits P69 and P70.
Justice Dada adjourned the matter till July 7, 2026 for the hearing of pending applications, and October 26, 27, 28 and 29, 2026 for the continuation of trial.
