AMCON fraud trial witness

AMCON fraud trial witness questions authenticity of loan agreement in N76bn case involving Ahmed Kuru, says pagination and signatures are irregular

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he third prosecution witness, Abbas Jega, has cast fresh doubt on key documents tendered in the ongoing fraud trial of former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Mallam Ahmed Kuru, and four others.

Also read: Nigerian govt grounds Arik Air over $2.5m debt

Jega, a former Executive Director of AMCON, told Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court, Ikeja, that he was not a signatory to the loan purchase agreement between Union Bank of Nigeria and Arik Air.

Kuru is standing trial alongside Captain Roy Ilegbodu, Arik Air’s Managing Director; Kamilu Omokide, the airline’s Receiver Manager; Union Bank of Nigeria Plc; and Super Bravo Limited.

They face a six-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing, and abuse of office involving a staggering sum of ₦75 billion and $31.5 million.

Under cross-examination by Olalekan Ojo, SAN, counsel to the fourth defendant, Jega questioned the validity of the signatures on the agreement.

He maintained that the two individuals who purportedly signed the document were seasoned professionals unlikely to have done so under the circumstances presented.

“I disagree that they signed the agreement the way it’s shown to me,” he told the court. He went further to highlight a discrepancy in the document, noting that it oddly began from page 8. “I doubt if my colleagues could have signed this agreement,” he added.

Ojo urged the witness to exercise caution in his statements and insisted that every page of the agreement was certified by AMCON.

Jega responded that his earlier statement to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on 19 June 2023 was based strictly on questions asked by investigators and his knowledge of the events in question.

The court also heard details of a February 4, 2011 meeting in London between Union Bank and foreign lenders, to which AMCON was invited.

Jega explained that the meeting was convened by Union Bank and that AMCON did not announce at the gathering that it had assumed responsibility for Arik Air’s loan.

He confirmed that neither Union Bank nor AMCON disclosed during the London meeting that the loan guarantee had been transferred. “We did not,” he replied firmly when asked if AMCON had declared any such takeover.

Asked whether he had returned to the EFCC with an additional statement following the initial one in 2023, Jega said there was no need.

“My Lord, there was no need to do that in respect of the Arik Air loan,” he insisted, adding that the only asset acquired by AMCON was the guarantee and the indemnity.

The revelations by Jega appear to add another layer of complexity to the high-profile case. Legal observers have noted that doubts over the authenticity of core documents could play a pivotal role in the unfolding trial.

Questions surrounding the integrity of the agreement, the disclosure at the 2011 meeting, and the absence of follow-up statements may shape the court’s evaluation of the alleged financial misconduct.

The EFCC is prosecuting the case and is expected to call more witnesses when the matter resumes later this year.

The trial has already attracted significant public attention, not only because of the personalities involved but also due to the high financial stakes and the implications for Nigeria’s aviation and banking sectors.

Also read: Arik Air boss, Arumemi-Ikhide, barred from airline premises

Justice Mojisola Dada has adjourned proceedings until October 15 and 17, when the court will continue hearing evidence in what could become one of the most consequential financial crime trials in recent years.