Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court in Ikeja, Lagos, was told on Wednesday that the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), under the leadership of Ahmed Lawan Kuru, allegedly diverted funds belonging to Arik Air to settle insurance liabilities for Umza Airline Limited. The airline was reportedly under receivership at the time of the alleged diversion.
The revelation was made by the fourth prosecution witness, Bawal Usman Kaltungo, an Assistant Director with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Kaltungo testified before the court while being led in evidence by prosecution counsel, Dr. Wahab Shittu (SAN).
Kuru is standing trial alongside other defendants over an alleged fraud involving N76 billion and $31.5 million. The EFCC has accused them of conspiracy, stealing, abuse of office, and making false statements related to the alleged fraudulent conversion of assets belonging to the defunct Arik Air Limited.
Other defendants in the matter include Kamilu Alaba Omokide, the Receiver Manager of Arik Air; Captain Roy Ilegbodu, the Managing Director of Arik Air; Union Bank Plc; and Super Bravo Limited.
While testifying before Justice Dada, Kaltungo told the court that investigations carried out by the EFCC uncovered evidence that Arik Air’s funds were used to settle insurance obligations owed by Umza Airlines.
“In the course of investigation, we discovered that Arik Air’s money was used to pay the insurance cover of Umza Airlines,” the witness said. He added that Umza Airlines was invited by the Commission and confirmed the development.
According to Kaltungo, investigators further discovered that Umza Aviation Services had begun repaying the loan linked to the transaction. However, the repayment had not been completed as of the time the investigation was ongoing.
The witness also told the court that AMCON had opened several accounts for Arik Air after the airline was placed under receivership. An account officer was assigned to manage the airline’s loan account.
Kaltungo stated that the EFCC invited the account officer as part of its investigation. The officer subsequently provided a statement of the loan account, which was signed by him and one Justin Akune.
The loan statement was submitted to the Commission along with a covering letter. According to the witness, the investigators sought to determine whether the Receiver Manager was effectively carrying out the responsibilities for which he had been appointed.
However, the investigation allegedly revealed that the Receiver Manager was not properly performing his duties. Kaltungo did not elaborate further on the specific shortcomings but maintained that the findings raised concerns about the management of Arik Air’s finances.
The court also heard that during the course of the investigation, the first defendant, Omokide, petitioned the Attorney-General of the Federation. The petition allegedly accused the EFCC of harassment and requested that the investigation be halted.
Kaltungo testified that the petition included 39 attachments. It was also accompanied by a legal opinion reportedly written by the Attorney-General and signed by the Solicitor-General.
According to the witness, the head of the investigative team received copies of the petition. He said the essence of the correspondence was to seek the stoppage of the EFCC’s probe into the matter.
“My head of the investigative team received copies of the petition. It was essentially requesting that the investigation be stopped,” Kaltungo told the court.
Counsel to the defence informed the court that they would reserve their objections until the address stage of the proceedings. No immediate objections were raised during the witness’s testimony.
After hearing the day’s evidence, Justice Dada adjourned further proceedings in the case until February 26, 2026. The trial is expected to continue with additional testimonies and cross-examinations.
The case centres on the management of Arik Air’s assets following its placement under receivership and the alleged misuse of company funds. The EFCC maintains that the defendants were involved in the fraudulent conversion of substantial sums belonging to the airline.
The defendants have denied wrongdoing, and the matter remains before the court for determination.
