A prosecution witness in the ongoing trial involving the former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, and four others, on Tuesday admitted before the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, that investigators did not trace any direct financial benefit to the defendants during the investigation into the controversial receivership of Arik Air.
The witness, Assistant Director of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Bawa Usman Kaltungo, made the admission during cross-examination by defence counsel, Professor Taiwo Osipitan, SAN, at the resumed hearing.
Kuru is standing trial alongside Kamilu Omokide, receiver-manager of Arik Air; Capt. Roy Ilegbodu, Managing Director of Arik Air; Union Bank of Nigeria Plc; Super Bravo Limited; and Mohammed Abbas Jega over allegations bordering on conspiracy, stealing, abuse of office, and unlawful conversion of Arik Air assets reportedly valued at N76 billion and $31.5 million.
The charges followed a petition filed by human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, on behalf of Arik Air promoter, Sir Johnson Arumemi-Ikide.
During proceedings, Kaltungo admitted under cross-examination that no money was directly traced to Kuru or the other defendants throughout the EFCC investigation.
When asked by Professor Osipitan whether he personally traced any proceeds or direct financial benefit to the former AMCON boss, the witness replied, “I did not trace it.”
Pressed further to identify any concrete evidence showing that Kuru personally benefited from the transactions under investigation, Kaltungo maintained that he only believed the former AMCON boss benefited “through shares,” but admitted that he had no direct proof linking him to personal financial gain.
The EFCC witness also acknowledged that actions carried out by Omokide and Ilegbodu in relation to Arik Air’s receivership were sanctioned by AMCON’s board.
The admission came after the defence tendered a letter allegedly written by AMCON to the EFCC Chairman authorising and approving decisions taken concerning Arik Air’s management and operations during the receivership period.
Although Kaltungo initially denied knowledge of the letter, insisting it was addressed to the EFCC Chairman, he later admitted that the defendants acted in their capacities as agents or representatives of AMCON.
The witness further confirmed that Omokide, who reportedly held a single share in NG Eagle, a Special Purpose Vehicle established by AMCON to manage its aviation-related assets, did not personally benefit from the airline’s sale.
According to him, proceeds from the sale of NG Eagle were paid to AMCON and not to any of the defendants standing trial.
The defence also questioned why AMCON itself was not charged in the case, despite allegedly authorising the actions now forming the basis of the prosecution.
Professor Osipitan argued before the court that the defendants merely acted on behalf of the Federal Government and AMCON in executing decisions aimed at stabilising Arik Air during a period of financial crisis.
During cross-examination, the EFCC witness further admitted that investigators did not obtain direct authority relating to the seizure or grounding of certain Arik Air aircraft.
He also conceded that some documents relied upon by the commission were supplied by third parties and were not independently verified during the investigation.
Kaltungo additionally admitted that some individuals connected to documents tendered before the court either denied knowledge of them or were never confronted with the documents during the investigation.
On allegations that N49 billion realised from Arik Air asset sales was used to establish NG Eagle, the witness said the information was provided by Arik Air’s Chief Financial Officer and subsequently corroborated by the commission’s findings.
The EFCC official also admitted that one Mogaji, alleged to have benefited improperly from transactions involving Arik Air, was never interrogated because he was outside the country at the time.
He told the court that Mogaji later sent an email acknowledging receipt of the benefit, but when asked to identify where the claim appeared in the EFCC report, the witness was unable to point it out.