An EFCC director has told a Lagos court that Arik Air’s receivership was based on an allegedly faulty debt claim, while certified AMCON board resolutions have been admitted in the ₦76 billion fraud trial involving former AMCON chief Ahmed Lawal Kuru and four others.
The latest courtroom developments sharpen the dispute over whether Kuru authorised Arik Air’s receivership alone or acted within a collective AMCON board decision, as the defendants contest allegations involving debt transfers, airline funds and assets.
LAGOS, Nigeria — A major development has emerged in the ongoing alleged ₦76 billion fraud trial involving former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Lawal Kuru, after an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) investigator described the foundation of Arik Air’s receivership as “fraudulent and faulty”.
Bawa Usman Kaltungo, Director of the EFCC’s Lagos Zonal Directorate 2 and the fourth prosecution witness, made the statement while testifying before Justice Mojisola Dada at the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja.
Kaltungo told the court that his investigation found that Arik Air was not indebted to Union Bank of Nigeria Plc in the circumstances relied upon to justify the airline’s receivership.
“The foundation for the appointment of a receivership over Arik Air was fraudulent and faulty. There was no bad debt; it does not exist,” the witness was quoted as saying.
The testimony has intensified scrutiny of the transactions surrounding Arik Air’s takeover by AMCON, the treatment of its loan obligations and the alleged handling of funds and assets belonging to the airline.
However, Kaltungo’s statements are testimony by a prosecution witness, not a final judicial finding that the receivership was fraudulent. The defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
AMCON Board resolutions admitted in court
The latest development came during cross-examination on Monday, October 26, 2026, when counsel to Kuru, Uyi Giwa-Osagie, tendered certified AMCON board resolutions to challenge the witness’s assertion that Kuru had personally authorised the appointment of the receiver-manager.
The prosecution objected to the documents, arguing that they were irrelevant to the issues before the court.
Justice Dada admitted the resolutions, ruling that they originated from AMCON’s board and had been duly certified in accordance with Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
The defence argued that the documents were relevant to establishing how the decision to place Arik Air under receivership was made.
Giwa-Osagie maintained that his client was not being prosecuted merely for exercising AMCON’s power to appoint a receiver-manager, but for the specific offences contained in the charge.
The admission of the resolutions allows the defence to rely on the documents during the trial. It does not, by itself, establish Kuru’s innocence or determine whether any of the alleged offences occurred.
The ₦71 Billion debt transfer under scrutiny
One of the charges against Union Bank alleges that the bank made false statements to AMCON concerning Arik Air’s performing loans and bank guarantees, resulting in the transfer of an allegedly inflated debt exposure of ₦71 billion to the corporation.
During his testimony, Kaltungo reportedly alleged that a ₦51 billion guarantee was converted into a loan and transferred to AMCON without the funds being used to settle the airline’s foreign creditors.
He further told the court that Arik Air had repaid part of its obligations to foreign creditors and alleged that the bank still owed the airline money in connection with those repayments. These assertions form part of the evidence presented by the prosecution and remain subject to the court’s assessment.
The dispute concerns the nature of Arik Air’s obligations, the records underlying the debt transfer and whether the representations made to AMCON were accurate.
The alleged ₦71 billion debt exposure is one component of the broader case described in reports as an alleged ₦76 billion and $31.5 million fraud trial.
The separate ₦4.9 billion allegation involving NG Eagle
Another count accuses Kuru, Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Arik Air’s former receiver-manager, and Captain Roy Ilegbodu, the airline’s chief executive officer during receivership, of fraudulently converting ₦4.9 billion belonging to Arik Air for the use of NG Eagle Limited in 2022.
The prosecution has also raised questions about transactions involving Arik Air’s assets, including the dismantling of an aircraft reportedly valued at $31.5 million.
These are allegations in the charge, not established findings of guilt. The defendants have denied the charges and are entitled to have the prosecution prove its case before the court.
Who approved Arik Air’s receivership?
At the centre of the current courtroom dispute is whether Kuru independently approved the receivership or whether the appointment was authorised through AMCON’s corporate decision-making process.
Kaltungo maintained that Kuru, as AMCON’s managing director and chief executive at the time, exercised extensive powers and personally sanctioned the appointment of the receiver-manager.
The defence has countered that account by presenting board resolutions intended to show that the decision was taken collectively.
The court’s admission of the resolutions means they may be considered as evidence. Their precise significance, including how they relate to the charges and the witness’s testimony, remains for the court to determine.
An earlier Court of Appeal judgment adds context
The latest testimony must also be considered alongside a separate development reported in June 2026.
AMCON announced that the trial court had admitted a Court of Appeal judgment affirming the legality of AMCON’s appointment of a receiver-manager over Arik Air. Contemporary reporting stated that the appellate judgment set aside an earlier decision relied upon to challenge the appointment.
That legal development is distinct from the criminal allegations currently before Justice Dada. The legality of appointing a receiver-manager and whether particular defendants committed the offences alleged in the charge are separate questions.
The prosecution must establish the elements of the alleged offences, while the defence can rely on admissible evidence and relevant legal arguments in response.
How the case began
The EFCC brought the case following a petition by human rights lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, on behalf of Arik Air’s promoters and shareholders, concerning the airline’s receivership and related transactions.
The defendants are Kuru; Omokide; Ilegbodu; Union Bank of Nigeria Plc; and Super Bravo Limited.
They were arraigned on January 20, 2025, and pleaded not guilty to the six-count charge bordering on alleged conspiracy, stealing and abuse of office.
The proceedings have included testimony about loan guarantees, debt transfers, airline funds and the handling of aircraft assets. The trial is examining a complex series of transactions involving the airline, its lender and the corporation that took it into receivership.
What happens next in the ₦76 billion fraud trial?
The admission of AMCON’s board resolutions marks a significant evidentiary development for the defence, while Kaltungo’s testimony has put the disputed debt claim and the circumstances of the receivership under renewed scrutiny.
According to reports published on October 26, the court adjourned the matter until Tuesday, October 27, 2026, for continuation of proceedings.
The central issues remain unresolved: whether the debt representations to AMCON were false, how the receivership was authorised, and whether the alleged diversion of airline funds and handling of assets amounted to criminal offences.
Neither the witness’s allegations nor the admission of the board resolutions should be mistaken for a final verdict.
DASCENARIO will continue to follow the trial and report further verified developments as the court considers the evidence.
Editorial note: All criminal allegations in this report are attributed to the prosecution, its witness or the charges as reported. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and the court has not delivered a final judgment in the case.
