The ongoing trial of Ahmed Kuru, former managing director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), and four others recorded a major development on Tuesday after a Lagos court admitted evidence suggesting that the defendants acted within the mandate of AMCON’s board resolutions.
The proceedings resumed before Mojisola Dada of the special offences court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos.
Kuru is standing trial alongside Kamilu Omokide, receiver-manager of Arik Air; Roy Ilegbodu, managing director of Arik Air; Union Bank of Nigeria Plc; and Super Bravo Limited, following a petition filed by Femi Falana on behalf of Johnson Arumemi-Ikide, promoter of Arik Air.
During cross-examination by Taiwo Osipitan, counsel to the first and third defendants, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) witness admitted that AMCON had written to the chairman of the anti-graft agency on November 28, 2024, clarifying that the defendants acted on behalf of the corporation and committed no wrongdoing in handling the affairs of Arik Air.
The letter, tendered in court, stated that the actions complained about arose from AMCON’s statutory mandate of debt recovery and enforcement of security interests over Arik Air’s assets as a chronic debtor.
According to the communication, AMCON maintained that decisions taken regarding Arik Air and NG Eagle were official corporate actions carried out under the lawful authority of the corporation’s board and officers.
The corporation added that there was “nothing in the charge indicating any personal benefits to AMCON and its officers”.
WITNESS TESTIMONY
Under cross-examination, Bawa Kaltungo, the EFCC witness, admitted that activities carried out by the receiver-manager and Arik Air management were sanctioned by the board of AMCON.
He also confirmed that the defendants acted in their capacities as agents, privies, representatives or subsidiaries of AMCON in relation to the affairs of Arik Air under receivership.
Kaltungo further told the court that Omokide did not personally benefit from the sale of NG Eagle, the special purpose vehicle established by AMCON as part of efforts to exit its aviation toxic assets portfolio.
He confirmed that Omokide held only a nominee share in NG Eagle, while AMCON remained the majority shareholder.
The witness also admitted that proceeds from the sale of NG Eagle went directly to AMCON and not to any of the defendants.
Osipitan questioned why the EFCC proceeded with criminal charges despite AMCON’s clarification that the actions complained about were authorised corporate decisions and despite the absence of evidence showing personal enrichment.
The defence maintained that the defendants acted within AMCON’s statutory mandate under the AMCON Act 2010 (as amended), which empowers the corporation to recover non-performing loans and enforce collateral rights.
Dada adjourned the case to June 25 and July 7, 2026, for continuation of the cross-examination of the EFCC witness.
