AMCON Board Approved NG Eagle Sale Confirmed in Kuru EFCC Trial

• An EFCC witness admitted the AMCON board approved the NG Eagle transaction during the Ahmed Kuru EFCC trial.
• The witness also conceded that a Federal High Court judgment, initially cited by the EFCC to claim NG Eagle's illegality, had been set aside on appeal.
• It was revealed that N149 million from the NG Eagle transaction was paid into AMCON's account at the Central Bank of Nigeria.
• The witness testified that the basis for Arik Air's receivership was fraudulent, as no debt was owed to Union Bank.
• AMCON board resolutions, challenging claims of Kuru's unilateral actions in the Arik Air receivership, were admitted as evidence by the Ikeja Special Offences Court.

This development underscores the critical importance of documented board approvals in defending executives against allegations of fraud and abuse of office.

During recent proceedings at the Ikeja Special Offences Court, a pivotal admission emerged from Bawa Kaltungo, a witness for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Under rigorous cross-examination by Olasupo Shasore, SAN, counsel for former Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) Managing Director Ahmed Kuru, Kaltungo confirmed that the AMCON board had indeed granted approval for the NG Eagle transaction. This revelation is central to the ongoing Ahmed Kuru EFCC trial, which involves allegations of a N76 billion fraud linked to Arik Air.

The witness further disclosed that a sum of N149 million, generated from the NG Eagle transaction, was successfully deposited into AMCON's account held at the Central Bank of Nigeria. Crucially, Kaltungo, who is the fourth prosecution witness, conceded that Kuru did not make unilateral decisions regarding the transaction. Instead, all actions were undertaken with the explicit approval of the AMCON board, which was at the time chaired by Dr. Amos Adamu. This testimony directly contradicted earlier assertions by the prosecution witness, who had previously suggested Kuru acted without proper authorization in matters concerning the airline and the transactions involving NG Eagle and Super Bravo Limited.

The cross-examination also delved into the EFCC's claims regarding the alleged illegal establishment of NG Eagle and another holding company, Super Bravo Limited. Kaltungo initially stated that the EFCC's position was based on intelligence, including a Federal High Court judgment that purportedly nullified the sale of NG Eagle. However, under persistent questioning, the witness admitted a significant oversight: he was unaware during his investigation that this particular judgment had been subsequently appealed and ultimately set aside by an appellate court.

Further compounding the prosecution's challenges, Kaltungo's testimony from the previous day, Monday, revealed that Arik Air was not indebted to Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. He asserted that the foundation for appointing a receiver-manager over the airline was therefore fraudulent and faulty, stating unequivocally that 'there was no bad debt; it does not exist.' Kaltungo, who leads the EFCC’s Lagos Zonal Directorate 2, indicated that his investigation into a petition concerning the airline led him to this conclusion, and he had communicated these findings to AMCON’s top management.

In a related development, Justice Mojisola Dada had on Monday admitted critical AMCON board resolutions into evidence. These documents, tendered by Kuru’s counsel, Uyi Giwa-Osagie, were presented to counter the witness’s claim that the former managing director had unilaterally approved Arik Air’s receivership. Despite objections from the prosecution regarding their relevance, the judge ruled that the resolutions, emanating from AMCON’s board as a corporate entity and duly certified under Section 104 of the Evidence Act, were admissible.

The defence argued that these Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria board resolution documents were essential for establishing the true circumstances surrounding the receivership and for accurately determining Kuru’s role in the decisions made by AMCON. The defendants in this case include Ahmed Kuru, Kamilu Alaba Omokide (a former receiver-manager of Arik Air), Captain Roy Ilegbodu (the airline’s chief executive officer), Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, and Super Bravo Limited. They face a six-count charge encompassing conspiracy, stealing, and abuse of office, stemming from a petition filed by human rights lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, on behalf of Arik Air’s promoters and shareholders. One of the specific counts alleges that Union Bank provided false statements to AMCON concerning Arik Air.

This development underscores the critical importance of documented board approvals in defending executives against allegations of fraud and abuse of office. The admissions made by the EFCC witness during the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission witness cross-examination highlight how thorough legal scrutiny can reveal crucial details that challenge initial prosecutorial narratives. The fact that the AMCON board approved NG Eagle sale trial proceedings have brought to light the full legal history of judgments, including appeals and reversals, demonstrates the necessity of comprehensive factual understanding in such complex cases.

Lawyers involved in corporate fraud cases should note the significant impact of effective cross-examination in exposing weaknesses in prosecution evidence, particularly concerning the scope of executive authority and the validity of corporate actions. The ongoing trial at the Ikeja Special Offences Court serves as a potent reminder of the rigorous standards required to prove allegations of financial misconduct and the pivotal role of board resolutions in establishing the legitimacy of high-value transactions.

This development underscores the critical importance of documented board approvals in defending executives against allegations of fraud and abuse of office. Lawyers should note the impact of effective cross-examination in revealing weaknesses in prosecution evidence, particularly concerning the full legal history of cited judgments and the scope of executive authority.

Source: Reporting based on recent court developments.