AMCON Ex-CEO Kuru Approved Arik Air Receivership Without Board Approval, EFCC Witness Tells Court
A witness for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has told the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, that former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, approved the receivership of Arik Air without obtaining prior approval from the corporation’s Board.
The witness, Bawa Usman Kaltungo, the Fourth Prosecution Witness (PW4), made the disclosure on Monday, October 26, 2026, while testifying before Justice Mojisola Dada during the trial of Kuru and four others over an alleged ₦76 billion and $31.5 million fraud.
Kuru is being prosecuted alongside Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Roy Ilegbodu, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc and Super Bravo Limited on a six-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing and abuse of office.
During cross-examination by Uyi Giwa-Osagie, counsel to Kuru, Kaltungo, who is currently the acting Zonal Director of the EFCC’s Lagos Zonal Directorate 2, maintained that Kuru exercised extensive powers as AMCON’s chief executive and approved the receivership arrangement before the matter was presented to the Board.
The witness, a former Head of the AMCON Desk in Lagos when the investigation began, said investigators found that the appointment of a receiver-manager for Arik Air preceded the Board’s approval. He added that the appointments made went beyond what the Board subsequently approved.
Kaltungo told the court that investigators requested documents linking the appointment to an earlier Board decision, but the documents were not produced during the investigation.
He explained that the EFCC began investigating the matter following a petition submitted by Femi Falana, SAN, counsel to Arik Air’s directors and shareholders, to the EFCC Chairman.
Identifying the petition in court, Kaltungo said it was dated April 27, 2023, received by the office of the EFCC Chairman on May 3, 2023, and forwarded to the Director of Operations on May 12, 2023.
He said the Commission directed the then Head of the AMCON Desk to investigate the allegations on May 22, 2023. According to him, he supervised the investigation alongside other officers and interviewed individuals considered relevant to the case.
The witness explained that the AMCON Desk handled cases referred to it involving the corporation, although other desks also investigated AMCON-related matters.
He said the investigation focused on the actions of individuals relevant to the allegations rather than the positions they occupied. He added that the investigation report tendered in evidence contained the Commission’s findings based on the information and evidence available at the conclusion of the investigation.
On the circumstances surrounding Arik Air’s receivership, Kaltungo said investigators sought to establish how AMCON came to appoint a receiver-manager for the airline. He said those responsible for the appointment explained that the airline had an outstanding bad loan.
However, the witness said the investigation found the claim underlying the receivership arrangement to be false.
He also told the court that the evidence gathered by the Commission did not establish that the Federal Government had paid money to acquire Arik Air or its debt.
Kaltungo explained that a receiver-manager was expected to take control of a company placed under receivership and protect and preserve its assets. He acknowledged that AMCON had the power to appoint a receiver for an indebted company but stressed that such powers had to be exercised in accordance with due process.
The witness said the investigation covered other allegations in the petition beyond the appointment of the receiver-manager.
He identified Oluseye Opasanya, SAN, and Omokide as the two individuals who had served as receiver-managers of Arik Air. According to him, Opasanya left the position in 2019, while Omokide was the receiver-manager when the investigation took place.
When shown a document relating to Omokide’s appointment, Kaltungo said the copy was incomplete and had originated from the Corporate Affairs Commission rather than AMCON. He requested the deed of appointment issued by AMCON, which he said had already been submitted to the court as an exhibit.
He further told the court that individuals named in the petition worked under the receiver-manager and that responsibility for their actions could arise from the circumstances of the case.
On the alleged transaction involving Arik Air’s loans and bank guarantees, Kaltungo maintained that the investigation indicated that AMCON had been misled by Union Bank of Nigeria Plc into taking over what was presented as bad debt.
One of the charges against Union Bank alleges that, in 2011, the bank made false statements to AMCON concerning Arik Air’s performing loans, resulting in the transfer of an alleged bogus figure of ₦71 billion to the corporation.
Another count alleges that Kuru, Omokide and Ilegbodu fraudulently converted ₦4.9 billion belonging to Arik Air to the use of NG Eagle Limited in 2022.
The defendants have been charged with offences relating to the alleged transactions.
During the proceedings, prosecution counsel Wahab Shittu, SAN, and defence lawyers also argued over documents containing resolutions of AMCON’s Board concerning the receivership.
Shittu argued that the central issue was whether the Board had approved the appointment of the receiver-manager before the decision was implemented.
He referred to documents tendered by the defence, including a Board resolution dated July 18, 2019, and other documents prepared between two and five years after the receivership decision. He argued that the documents were too remote from the decision under investigation to establish that prior approval had been obtained.
Shittu clarified that the prosecution was not disputing the relevance of the documents but maintained that they did not establish that the required approval was secured before the appointment.
In response, Giwa-Osagie argued that the charges against his client concerned the appointment of the receiver-manager and contended that the decisions in question were made by AMCON’s Board. He also argued that Kuru was the only Board member being prosecuted over the decisions.
Counsel representing the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants said they had no objection to the seven documents tendered by the first defendant’s counsel.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Dada admitted the documents containing AMCON Board resolutions in evidence.
The court adjourned the case until Tuesday, October 27, 2026, for continuation of the trial.
AMCON Ex-CEO Kuru Approved Arik Air Receivership Without Board Approval, EFCC Witness Tells Court