Court Rejects EFCC’s Evidence in ₦76bn Arik Air Fraud Trial


A Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja presided over by Justice Mojisola Dada, has rejected a document presented by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the ongoing trial of the former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, and four others over alleged fraud involving Arik Air.

The EFCC accused Kuru and his co-defendants of fraudulently diverting ₦76 billion and $31.5 million from the airline. 

Other defendants in the case include Mr Kamilu Omokide, a former receiver manager of Arik Air Limited; Captain Roy Ilegbodu, the airline’s Chief Executive Officer; Union Bank Limited; and Super Bravo Limited.


Court Rules Against EFCC’s Evidence


During the hearing, the EFCC sought to tender a document as evidence, but Justice Dada ruled that the anti-graft agency failed to meet the legal requirements for its admissibility.

The judge held that the witness presenting the document was not part of the investigative team that handled the case, making it improper for him to introduce the document as evidence.

“It is trite that a party must lay a foundation for the document sought to be tendered under the Evidence Act,” Justice Dada stated.

She further emphasized the need for proper certification of public documents, pointing out that the witness was not a member of AMCON, which held the original document.

“The issue of proper certification is crucial as provided by law. Therefore, the document cannot be tendered by this witness,” the judge ruled.

Justice Dada supported her decision with several legal precedents before ultimately rejecting the EFCC’s request.


Legal Teams and Witness Testimony


During the proceedings, the EFCC was represented by Dr Wahab Shittu (SAN), while the first and third defendants were defended by Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN). 

Olasupo Seashore (SAN) appeared for the second defendant, while Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN) represented the fourth defendant. The fifth defendant had separate legal representation.

The prosecution’s key witness, Mr Austine Obegwe, a former Group Executive Director of Corporate and International Banking at Union Bank, was led in evidence by Shittu.

Obegwe testified that he was involved in transactions related to aircraft financing for Arik Air. 

He disclosed that Union Bank had acted as a guarantor for the airline’s financing arrangements, including deals with the US Export-Import (EXIM) Bank and other international financial institutions.

“We also had a second transaction for two wide-body aircraft—a Boeing A340-500 and another aircraft—financed by Chemist of Germany, Coface of ECGB of the UK, and other stakeholders,” Obegwe stated.

He explained that Union Bank did not commit funds for 85% of the aircraft financing and noted that the two aircraft were used for international flights, including a route between Nigeria and New York.

“Unfortunately, since Arik Air stopped flying to New York, no other Nigerian airline has operated direct flights on that route,” he added.

Obegwe further testified that during his tenure at Union Bank, all financial facilities extended to Arik Air were performing, and there were no defaults.


Defence Counsels Challenge EFCC’s Evidence


The EFCC attempted to introduce a report from a stakeholder meeting in London as evidence, but the defence team objected to its admissibility.

Ojo (SAN) argued that the document was neither signed nor dated, raising concerns about its authenticity.

“The law requires that original copies of documents be properly certified before they can be admitted in court,” Osipitan (SAN) added, supporting the objection.

However, Shittu maintained that the document was relevant to the case, regardless of its certification status.

“My Lord, even if the document was stolen, as long as it is relevant to the case, it should be admissible in court,” he argued.

Justice Dada rejected Shittu’s submission, ruling that the document could not be admitted because the witness presenting it was not an EFCC investigator and lacked the authority to tender it.

Following the ruling, the judge adjourned the case to May 19, 2025, for the continuation of the trial.


Copyright Notice:


All rights reserved. The content on this website, including text and other digital materials, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without the express written consent of THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.

For advertising inquiries, news coverage, or press releases, please contact us at thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com or call 08144048512, 08051017159.






Post a Comment

To be published, comments must be reviewed by the administrator *

Previous Post Next Post
"