AMCON MGT LETTER TO EFCC ON ARIK
The 4th prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of former Managing Director, Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Mr Ahmed Kuru, and four others at the Special Offences Court in Ikeja, Lagos, Mr Bawa Usman Kaltungo, at the resumption of the criminal proceedings on May 19, 2026, finally admitted that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) did not trace any money to the accused persons during their investigation.
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 the 4th Prosecution Witness under Cross-Examination by Counsel to the First and Third Defendants, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan SAN, admitted 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. The EFCC Witness (PW4) was forced to retract his earlier testimony and stance on the actions and activities of the Defendants over the affairs of Arik when, Counsel to the 1st and 3rd Defendants in the matter Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) tendered in evidence a letter from AMCON addressed to the EFCC Chairman, which sanctioned the decisions and actions carried out by the Defendants over the affairs of Arik. Kaltungo, however, denied knowledge of the letter as he claimed same was addressed to the Chairman of the EFCC. Under cross-examination, he also 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 also 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 further confirmed that the proceeds from the sale of NG Eagle went to AMCON, and not to any of the Defendants.
Prof. Taiwo Osipitan, SAN, who led the EFCC witness on cross-examination, had wondered 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. Prof Osipitan, SAN, also wondered and asked the EFCC witness to tell the open court why his agency (EFCC) would initiate criminal charges against the accused persons when, indeed, no monetary benefit was traced to any of them during the EFCC’s investigation, a fact repeatedly admitted to by Kaltungo under cross-examination, having personally led the investigation on the matter.
It would be recalled that AMCON’s intervention in Arik Air Limited was in the overall national interest, which was initiated by the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) through the Ministry of Aviation to prevent the imminent collapse of another Nigerian airline, especially one that controlled over 60% of domestic air transportation in the country, amongst other public concerns. The Ministry of Aviation at the time drew the attention of the Federal Government of the late President Muhammadu Buhari to the fact that Arik may not survive another two months without intervention. AMCON was therefore invited to intervene in the airline in line with its statutory mandate.
It is also important to note that at the heart of AMCON’s statutory mandate is the recovery of all Non-Performing Loans (NPLs), and the enforcement, as well as the realization of collateral. Therefore, AMCON is imbued with the powers under the AMCON Act, 2010 (as amended) to, inter alia, realize any security that an Eligible Financial Institution (EFI) could have realized and, in turn, enforce any rights or interest on any asset in relation to any Eligible Bank Assets (EBAs) acquired pursuant to the AMCON Act, which is what the Corporation did in the case of its intervention in Arik Air.
While Kaltungo, in the course of his testimony, sought to mislead the Court into believing that the 1st Defendant sold NG Eagle shares solely and unilaterally as a Receiver-Manager holding majority shares in NG Eagle, when in fact he was just a nominee with a single unit of share, as AMCON, the Corporation that appointed him, actually holds majority shares in NG Eagle.
Arik at the time was characterized by weak corporate governance structure, the airline struggled with over 40% of flight cancellation; poor On-Time-Performance (OTP) of 19%; huge unpaid debt obligations at the time in excess of N300billion to various creditors with AMCON standing as the highest single creditor being owed about half of the sum; difficulty in paying overdue fleet insurance premium; threats of service suspension by critical suppliers and service providers; unpaid salaries and statutory employee contributions and many more.
Justice Dada thereafter adjourned to June 25 and July 7, 2026, for continuation of the cross-examination of the EFCC witness by the Defense.
