In his testimony, Kaltungo testified that this arrangement entails the Receiver Manager’s nominee having a shareholding arrangement of NG Eagle of “one unit within a billion-share structure,” as part of the findings that emerged during the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s investigation.

The development surfaced as Bawa Usman Kaltungo, EFCC Investigative Officer, continued his examination-in-chief led by prosecution counsel, Dr. Wahab Shittu, SAN. Kaltungo told the court that the financial trail uncovered by investigators showed how funds allegedly belonging to Arik Air Limited were unaccounted for while NG Eagle was being established.

Kaltungo also, in the course of his testimony, sought to mislead the Court to believe that the 1st Defendant sold NG Eagle shares solely and unilaterally as a Receiver holding majority shares in NG Eagle, when in fact he is just a nominee with a single unit of share, as AMCON, the corporation that appointed him, holds majority shares in NG Eagle.

Even though his testimonies were made with the support of a few documents admitted in evidence, Kaltungo still was not able to establish a nexus of any act of omission on the part of the accused persons to establish fraud or crime in the management of Arik’s loan.

Kuru is standing trial alongside Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Captain Roy Ilegbodu, Union Bank Plc, and Super Bravo Limited before Justice Mojisola Dada.

According to the witness, the statement of Arik’s former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Jonathan Sani, detailed how the defendants allegedly moved N4.5 billion from Arik to fund NG Eagle, an airline he said was controlled by the defendants.

He further testified that Omokide and Ilegbodu allegedly worked with Kuru to funnel a total of N4.9 billion from Arik’s coffers to manage and fund operations of the new airline.

Kaltungo added that beyond the cash transfers, Arik staff were also moved to NG Eagle even though the new airline was set up while Kuru was still AMCON MD, and Omokide served as AMCON’s Receiver Manager. He said salary payments and operational expenses for the newly formed NG Eagle were borne by Arik Air Limited.

During proceedings, the court admitted a CTC of an ex parte order, which the prosecution termed as the only document authorizing the appointment of the RM over Arik and marked the same as P17, along with other exhibits – P18, P25, P26, P44, and P45 – including. photographs and videos in a flash drive containing footage of alleged vandalised aircraft were played in court, but the Prosecution again failed to establish a nexus as to whether those aircraft indeed belonged to Arik.

Meanwhile, counsel for the second and third defendants applied for the release of their clients’ passports for renewal and medical purposes. Justice Dada granted the requests on the condition that the documents be returned to the court registry no later than January 2, 2026.

The matter was thereafter adjourned to February 25 and 26, 2026, for continuation of the trial and Examination-in-Chief of PW4.

The investment, facilitated by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), is expected to finance ntel’s planned relaunch in the first quarter of 2026.

This development comes as ntel continues its recovery from years of financial collapse and management changes. Though AMCON has not disclosed the size or source of the latest capital injection, the agency is working to rebuild the company before transferring ownership to private investors.

AMCON, which holds a 55% controlling stake, took full management control of ntel in 2024 following the operator’s bankruptcy. Since then, it has overseen a series of interventions aimed at reviving the brand once built to replace the defunct NITEL and MTel. 

In August 2025, AMCON was reported to have injected N30.72 billion into ntel’s revival, a figure that now appears to be part of a bigger, phased plan.

Despite President Bola Tinubu’s earlier directive that ntel should be sold “even for scrap” if necessary, AMCON insists the company must first achieve operational stability to attract credible investors. “We need to put the house in order before we hand it over,” a person close to the process told reporters.

To drive the turnaround, AMCON restructured ntel’s leadership in May, appointing Soji Maurice-Diya, former chief executive officer of American Tower Nigeria, to replace Adrian Wood, the ex-MTN Nigeria boss who had earlier championed a $550 million fundraising effort. 

Under the new management, ntel is expected to operate on a hybrid model, combining its own network assets with mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) capabilities.

The company retains significant national infrastructure, including more than 3,500 kilometres of fibre-optic cable and over 600 base stations across key cities, positioning it well for both retail and wholesale telecom services.

While full operations are yet to resume, ntel has begun rebuilding its workforce. Recruitment adverts for roles such as Regional Admin Coordinator, Financial Planning Assistant Manager, and Front Desk Officer have surfaced in recent weeks, signalling internal preparations for commercial relaunch.

In the meantime, AMCON is generating revenue by leasing parts of ntel’s spectrum to MTN Nigeria, an arrangement that allows MTN to use ntel’s frequencies in select states.

If the ongoing recovery stays on course, ntel could become the first state-rescued telecom operator in Nigeria to successfully return to the market.

Jega appeared as the third prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of the former AMCON boss, Mr. Ahmed Kuru, and four others, who are standing trial over alleged financial misappropriation amounting to N76 bn and $31.5m. The matter is presided over by Justice Mojisola Dada.

Providing the court with the details of what he could recollect about the Arik Air/Union Bank business relationship that went bad, Jega recalled that following the directive of the Central Bank regarding the dumping of non-performing loans to AMCON, Union Bank had informed AMCON then that the CBN informed them to collapse the guarantee of Arik into loan because of the huge amount involved in the Union Bank had exceeded the single obligor limit allowable by the apex bank.

Jega whose directorate in AMCON was in charge of the transaction (as Executive Director, Credit) disclosed that it was in a certain meeting held in London that we ‘first knew that what Union Bank sold to us was not a loan but a guarantee given to some foreign lenders, that in the event Arik died or burnout, Union Bank will pay the instalments.’

He said,

“When we came back to Nigeria… we now invited the Union Bank to explain why AMCON should pay for the guarantee. At the end of the deliberations, AMCON agreed with Union Bank that the money paid should be returned to AMCON, so that if Arik does not pay any instalment, AMCON will make the payment on behalf of Arik. We (AMCON) invited Arik to resolve the issue with Union Bank.

However, AMCON sources have confirmed that the arrangement disclosed by Jega never existed. AMCON, being a recovery agency of the federal government of Nigeria, was never in a position to take over the repayment of an obligor’s exposure to foreign lenders, particularly when it never had any concrete arrangement with the obligor for the same.

Jega also disclosed that the Chairman of Arik, Sir Johnson Arumemi-Ikhide, was avoiding a discussion with us (AMCON), probably because he believed he shouldn’t be talking to AMCON, because he didn’t have an NPL with Union Bank.

But he didn’t realise that some of the measures put in place by the system were that if AMCON takes over your loan, you cannot borrow in the banking industry. This forced him to come to the table. We signed some agreements on how to restructure the loans.

He said that after the restructuring agreement, AMCON gave Arik even more money to help them sort out their working capital problems.

As a result, AMCON created additional loan facilities for Arik, but Arik still failed to meet their repayment obligation to AMCON.

He added that,

“At the time AMCON took over Union Bank that the guarantee was performing, but since AMCON took over Arik, it stopped performing because the nature of the facility had changed, and Arik was not amenable to that change. It was unable to source its working capital from the money market. This complicated both the relationship between Arik/AMCON and the ability of Arik to honour its obligations.

“We tried in AMCON to save the situation through a debt equity swap, but the burden in AMCON’s books cannot be sustained by the airline. We also proffered a solution where AMCON becomes a shareholder in Arik, and the legacy owners will lose some control. We took steps to implement this option, but Arik refused.

“The second option was to have management control in Arik. To appoint MD and CFO, so that AMCON can have both oversight and financial control. Initially, Arik agreed. But they dragged in the implementation. This was the stage at which the matter was when I left AMCON.”

Upon cross-examination, Jega confirmed that Kamilu Omokide and Capt Ilegbodu never played any role in the purchase of the loan from Union Bank, nor did they play any role in the so-called London meeting between Union Bank, AMCON and Arik’s foreign lenders.

Jega also confirmed during cross-examination that Arik’s inability to repay was a result of over-trading by Arik, that is, stretching beyond its capacity and leading to their inability to service existing and due debts.

He confirmed Arik’s indebtedness to AMCON as at the time of his exit in 2015 was over N100bn, and the same remained unpaid.

He further disclosed that the Arik loans acquired by AMCON were not limited to Union Bank but also included Keystone Bank.

But the Zenith Bank loan was purchased after his exit, leading to the level of exposure Arik had to AMCON.

The matter was adjourned to 30th June, 1st and 2nd July 2025 for the continuation of cross-examination of Abass Jega.

Obigwe is one of the witnesses of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on the matter.

Recall that when he was first interrogated before the matter was adjourned, the same Obigwe claimed that Arik was a healthy company that had no financial challenges up to the time he left the service of Union Bank in 2009.

But pressed further today, he accepted that Arik was an irresponsible, badly run, immoral company, which also owed him a whopping 2.3 million dollars, which he had to write off because of his business relationship with the promoter of Arik Air Limited.

Obigwe appeared as a prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of the former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Mr. Ahmed Kuru, and four others, who are standing trial over alleged financial misappropriation amounting to alleged N76 billion and $31.5m., etc.

The EFCC arraigned the defendants on a six-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing, and abuse of office.

The defendants include Kuru, the former Receiver Manager of Arik Air Limited, Mr. Kamilu Omokide; Arik Air’s Chief Executive Officer, Captain Roy Ilegbodu; Union Bank of Nigeria PLC; and Super Bravo Limited.

They all pleaded not guilty to the charges, and Justice Mojisola Dada subsequently granted them bail in the sum of N20million each, with one surety in like sum.

Under cross examination, Mr. Obigwe informed the court that, in 2011, two years after he exited Union Bank, Arik Air was indebted to his private company, Staal, in the sum of $2.3 million. He stated that the amount was never repaid but that he had written it off due to the operational difficulties faced by the airline at the time.

“I am not interested in collecting it. I wrote it off when I discovered that Arik Air started having challenges,” Obigwe told the court. The witness also confirmed that following his exit from Union Bank, he formally became a consultant to Arik Air and other companies.

When asked whether the founder of Arik Air, Sir Johnson Arumemi-Ikhide, was a personal acquaintance, he responded in the affirmative, noting that although he currently has no formal relationship with the airline, he maintains a relationship with Arumemi-Ikhide, who is also his church member.

During cross-examination by defence counsel, including Olasupo Shasore, SAN (for the second defendant); Olalekan Ojo, SAN (for the fourth defendant); and Tayo Oyedepo, SAN (for the fifth defendant), Mr. Obigwe stated that in 2009, he participated in an inspection of 26 aircraft belonging to Arik Air.

According to him, the aircraft were found to be airworthy and in good condition, based on assessments provided by Lufthansa. “I had no reason to doubt Lufthansa’s evaluation,” he said, adding that the purpose of the inspection was to ensure that the airline’s fleet had not been depleted.

When asked about the airline’s compliance with its loan obligations, Obigwe testified that during his tenure at Union Bank, there were no complaints from other financial institutions suggesting that Arik Air was defaulting on its loan obligations.

He also confirmed that, to the best of his knowledge, Arik Air was servicing its loan with Union Bank during his tenure.

Responding to a letter dated April 23, 2009, allegedly written by AMCON to Union Bank concerning a N46.11 billion debt owed by Arik Air, the witness denied knowledge of the letter, even though he was still in the service of Union Bank at the time, and was the Group Executive Director whose directorate supervised the Arik transaction.

On the character and management of Arik Air, the witness said: “I can only speak for the period I was there. When I was at Union Bank, Arik Air was one of the best companies.”

When questioned on the options available to lenders when a loan becomes non-performing, Obigwe responded that the lender may choose to transfer the loan to another bank, reassign it, or enforce the security tied to the loan.

He also acknowledged that a lender is legally empowered to dispose of the security in the event of default by the borrower in other wards justifying the decision of AMCON to have intervened in Arik to recover the Arik Air debt, which Union Bank sold to AMCON on the directive of Union Bank when AMCON was established by the Federal Government to mop-up all non-performing loans in the banks.

The matter was adjourned till June 4, 2025, for the continuation of the trial. On the last adjourned date, Obigwe, who is the second prosecution witness, and was led in evidence by Dr Wahab Shittu (SAN), told the court that he was a Group Executive Director in Corporate and International Banking at Union Bank.

The court was also able to establish that the witness, while in the service of Union Bank as Group Executive Director, Corporate and International Banking, Union Bank had a business relationship with the promoter of Arik, which was regularised and formalised into a full-fledged consultancy arrangement shortly after he exited Union Bank, which implied that even as ED, Union Bank, he may not have operated in the overall interest of the bank due to his relationship with the Arik owner.

The minister gave the charge on Wednesday in Abuja during the Inauguration of the New Board of AMCON.

The new board is chaired by Dr Bala Mohammed Bello.

The Non-Executive Directors are Yusuf Tegina, Adeyemo Adeoye, Charles Odion Iyiore, Yahaya Ibrahim, and Emily Chidinma Osuji.

According to him,

“This ceremony is not merely a procedural event; it is a defining moment in the continued effort of this administration to promote financial stability, enhance investor confidence, and reposition Nigeria’s financial institutions for long-term growth and sustainability.”

He said Nigerians look to AMCON not just as a recovery agency, but as a vehicle for transparency, accountability, and the efficient resolution of non-performing loans that continue to weigh down our banking system and public finances.

“However, as we all know, the task of economic transformation is an ongoing journey. As our macroeconomic realities evolve, so too must the strategies we adopt to strengthen financial institutions, improve fiscal discipline, and unlock value from distressed assets. The role of AMCON is as critical today as it was at its inception—if not more so.”

He emphasized some of the key priority areas for the immediate attention of the new board to include enhanced Asset Recovery: AMCON’s current portfolio of unrecovered debts remains a matter of national concern.

The Board must work assiduously to strengthen the Corporation’s asset recovery strategy, including through legal enforcement, restructuring, and the sale of assets.

Governance and Accountability: It is imperative that this new Board upholds the principles of good corporate governance, transparency in operations, and strict adherence to the rule of law.

Collaboration with Stakeholders: The Board must ensure strategic collaboration with relevant MDAs, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Judiciary, and the National Assembly. A unified approach is essential to ensure that AMCON’s recovery mandate is not undermined.

On Exit Strategy, Edun noted that,

“While AMCON was created as a temporary intervention, its winding down must be approached with caution and strategy. The new Board is expected to begin articulating a credible and sustainable exit framework, in alignment with the government’s broader economic reform agenda.”

He said the reform agenda of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration is cantered on economic stability, job creation, and private sector-led growth.

AMCON’s effective performance under your stewardship will contribute significantly to the achievement of these objectives.

In his remarks, Mr Gbenga Alade, the managing director and chief executive of AMCON, thanked the Minister for supporting the operations of the Corporation.

Alade assured that, with the inauguration of the new board the recovery process would be enhanced.

Welcoming the AMPs to its inaugural interactive session since the assumption of the current executive management of AMCON, the Executive Director in charge of Resolution, Mr Adeshola Lamidi, whose directorate in AMCON manages the AMPs scheme, in his charge, said the new dawn in AMCON which includes proactive and practical applications to debt recovery, the Corporation has decided to take its relationship with the appointed AMPs to the next level, which he also assured would be mutually beneficial to both the AMPs and AMCON.

Reassuring the AMPs of the decision of the AMCON management to continue the partnership programme, Lamidi said sessions such as this, would provide a timely and strategic opportunity for us to reflect on our journey so far, re-evaluate our recovery strategies and pave the way forward for better effectiveness, and efficiency in conducting this national assignment.

He reminded the AMPs that “AMCON’s mandate was at creation summarised in two folds: To stabilise the financial system (which we have done through the acquisition of non-performing loans and providing funds to the banks to avoid a systemic failure in the nation’s financial system, and the recovery of these loans.”

He stated that Whilst AMCON has performed very well over the years, there is still room for improvement, adding that, “Our success depends greatly on you, our Asset Management Partners (AMPs), through your dedication, innovation and professionalism. 

“In achieving greater success, we must deepen collaboration, uphold ethical standards, and embrace strategic thinking in our recovery efforts. This session is therefore designed not only to strengthen engagement with our partners but also to jointly explore practical solutions, share feedback, and forge better ways forward,” Lamidi concluded.

Validating the position of Mr Gbenga Alade, the executive director, while declaring the interactive session open, underscored the importance of the AMP scheme when he urged the AMPs to take the AMCON debt recovery assignment seriously.

Alade said,

“You must not underrate your importance to the Corporation. You are indeed very critical to our success, as our workforce of less than 500 personnel with offices in Lagos and Abuja may not effectively cope with the over 12,000.00 portfolios in our inventory. Accordingly, the imperative of deepening our mutual synergy is readily apparent.

“With an inevitable Sunset date and recalcitrant debtors, a high premium is placed on debt recovery efforts to ensure that the Corporation achieves its statutory mandate. In other words, with a looming Sunset date, it is necessary that you are more aggressive in your debt recovery drive. We are not oblivious to the herculean challenges confronting you in your debt recovery strides.  Certainly, debt recovery has never been easy. However, most of you have surmounted these hurdles with excellent performance to your credit.

“Your consistent feedback from previous sessions and at other fora formed the fulcrum of the Federal High Court (Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria) Proceedings Rules, 2024, and the establishment of the Insolvency Unit of the Federal High Court on Monday, March 24, 2025. In the Notice establishing the Insolvency Unit at the Federal High Court, My Lord the Hon. Chief Judge of the Federal High Court explained that it was created pursuant to the ‘relevant insolvency provisions of the AMCON Act, 2010 (as amended)’ and the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2020.’”

The AMCON CEO further explained that “Amongst others, the functions of the Unit include the effective implementation of the provisions of the insolvency laws relating to Company Voluntary Arrangements, Administration, Receivership, Winding-Up and various forms of re-structuring. Notably, this Unit was established in accordance with global best practices on insolvency.

It will also offer specialized and standardized services on insolvency. Furthermore, the Unit will serve as a dedicated channel for supervisory and enforcement infrastructure on insolvency issues.

For AMCON, this Unit will offer the Fast Track services inherent to the realization of the Corporation’s mandate and the procedure enacted by the Federal High Court AMCON Rules, 2024.

“In addition to the Unit in the Abuja Division, the Corporation is collaborating with the office of the Hon. Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to have this Unit established in Lagos, Port Harcourt, Enugu, Kano, and Kaduna divisions of the Federal High Court.

This will enhance your performance and also ease your challenges while delivering your tasks to the Corporation.

The FHC AMCON Rules, 2024 have robustly prescribed the procedure for realizing the extraordinary powers of the Corporation as enshrined in its establishment Act 2010 and subsequent amendments.  Our resource person will take you through the nitty-gritty of the Proceeding Rules.

“Similarly, the Hon. President of the Court of Appeal, also in the exercise of the powers as the Hon. President of the Court of Appeal approved the Court of Appeal (Fast Track) Practice Directions, 2021 to expedite disposal of matters relating to AMCON debt recovery and indeed other institutions that relate with insolvency. The Fast Track Practice Directions has accommodated the expedient provisions of the AMCON Act, 2010 (as amended) by prescribing that the  Court of Appeal can exercise any power conferred by any law and impose conditions, including a condition to pay a judgment debt or other sum of money into Court’s Registry or specify the consequence (s) of failure to comply with the order or the condition. Similar provisions are also captured by the Supreme Court Rules, 2024.”

It would be recalled that when the AMPs scheme was set up in 2016, the strategy was for AMCON to leverage the expertise of the firms to resolve debts that are categorised into two: debts of N100 million and below, and debts of N100 million and above.

The Corporation also, through that platform, intends to nurture its transformation into the preferred model for recovery and resolution of non-performing loans in the banking sector and financial services industry. A new sub-sector should emerge with desirable job creation and multiplier impact.

Therefore, the AMPs would, among other things, work with AMCON in tracing, identifying, and locating obligors with the intent to resolve their outstanding indebtedness.

They would also be involved in the identification and location of assets of obligors (both pledged and unpledged) to enhance the Eligible Bank Assets (EBAs) value and achieve set recovery objectives, negotiation of settlement and restructuring terms with identified obligors in line with approved guidelines. The AMPs will be vested with the wide powers granted to AMCON by its enabling Act.

It would be recalled that almost nine years ago, AMCON called for applications from reputable and qualified entities with the requisite experience to collaborate with it as AMPs to resolve these debts.

Recall that AMCON was established in 2010 as a resolution vehicle to purchase the non-performing loans from banks, inject liquidity into the banks, and subsequently recover the purchased bad loans.

Since its establishment, AMCON has successfully stabilised the Nigerian banking sector by restructuring and collecting some of these loans.

However, the Corporation is seeking to recover a humongous outstanding debt of over N4.6trillion in the hands of its obligors.

Themed, AMCON Debt Recovery in Renewed Hope Paradigm, the AMCON interaction with the AMPs featured many presentations including, “AMCON Special Powers and the Dissection of the Federal High Court (Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria) Proceeding Rules, 2024, etc; the Role of the EFCC in AMCON debt recovery; Asset Tracing and Documentation; Conventional and Unconventional Asset Tracing as well as AMP case Management and AMP Regime, amongst others.

The airline, which has been under the receivership of Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) since 2017, despite its challenges, also operated 10,699 flights within the year under review, making it the second most active airline in terms of passenger traffic and flight operations in Nigeria, after Air Peace.

According to the report, the total number of air travellers in the domestic scene in 2024 was 11, 549,443 with inbound at 5,727,700 and outbound passengers at 5,821,743.

This figure shows that Arik Air captured 19.3 per cent of the total passenger traffic for 2024, while it had 15.1 per cent of the total 70,543 flights operated by the 15 domestic airlines in the year under review.

The Executive Summary on International and Domestic Flight Operations 2024, as captured by the NCAA, indicated that Arik Air had 1,112,358 and 1,126,818 as inbound and outbound passengers for 2024, respectively, making it a total of 2,239,176 passengers ferried in 2024.

Monthly breakdown of the passenger traffic indicated that Arik Air had 37,772 inbound passengers and another 38,987 as outbound passengers in January 2024, totalling 76,759 passengers. For February the airline recorded 38,217 as inbound and 39,209 as outbound, totalling 77,426; March, 37,183 as inbound and 37,642 as outbound, making it a total of 74,825; April, 31,326 as inbound and 31,971 as outbound, making 63,297.

The airline in May 2024, also recorded 39,006 as inbound and 39,765 as outbound passengers, totalling 78,771 for the month, while the month of June had 37,710 as inbound and 38,617 as outbound, totalling 76,327; July, 156,146 as inbound and 159,044 as outbound, totalling 315,190; August, the airline recorded 153,080 as inbound and 144,259 as outbound, making it a total figure of 297,339 within the period.

For the month of September, Arik Air recorded 143,396 as inbound and 145,096 as outbound, making it a total figure of 288,492; October 129,506 as inbound and 133,330 as outbound, totalling 262,836; November, 252,448 as inbound and 255,578 as outbound, making it a total of 508,026, while December had 56,568 as inbound and 63,322 as outbound, making it a total of 119,890 passengers ferried within the period.

Also, a month-by-month breakdown of flights operated by Arik Air in 2024 showed that the airline had a total number of 380 flights in January, 2024; 419 flights in February and 468 flights in March 2024.

Further breakdown showed that for the month of April, the airline operated a total number of 340 flights; May, 374; June, 350, while it peaked in July, going as high as 1,403 flights in just one month.

Besides, in August, the airline operated 1,320 flights; in September, 1,352; in October, 1,266; in November, 2,442, while it operated a total of 585 flights in December 2024.

The airline within the period also had a total number of complaints among the air travellers, with just 190, with the majority being resolved by the airline.

The further breakdown of complaints indicated that for the month of January, there were no single complaints from any of its air passengers ferried within the period, had just two complaints in February, while March recorded only one complaint.

April had four complaints; May, two; June, one; July, three; August received seven complaints; September, 28; October, 50; November, 67, while December 2024 recorded only 25 complaints from the flying public. Besides, Arik Air did not record a single baggage miss in 2024, with all 84 delayed baggage items, as indicated by the NCAA statistics, were handed over to their owners.

Furthermore, unlike other domestic airline operators, Arik Air had only one overbooking/denied flight in its entire 10,699 flights in 2024. This was in October 2024.

Olumide Ohunayo, general secretary, Aviation Safety Round Table Initiative said:

“Arik Air’s performance in 2024 stands out as exceptional, despite the airline being under AMCON receivership. The data released by the regulatory authority ranked Arik as second in domestic passenger traffic, moving 2,239,176 passengers—a testament to its resilience and strategic management under challenging conditions.

“With a 13.4% market share out of the 11.5 million total domestic passengers, Arik Air’s sustained dominance highlights its strong operational efficiency. This result demonstrates Arik’s operational stability under Receivership despite financial constraints, distractive litigations, fleet limitations, and regulatory challenges, the airline continued to deliver reliable air travel services, showing effective route management and passenger demand optimization.

“It should be noted that Arik Air suffered severe disruptions due to a high court order grounding some of its aircraft last year when mediation was a better option to the instantaneous grounding by the executive.”

In his comment Roland Iyayi MD of Top Brass Aviation Limited said: “Arik Air transporting 2.2 million passengers and securing the second position in Nigeria’s domestic market, ahead of competitors like Ibom Air (1.3 million), Max Air (915,918), and Aero Contractors (964,900) is a huge and massive achievement, considering the disruptions the airline had suffered under receivership.

“Arik Air’s performance is remarkable given its limited access to fresh capital, aging fleet, and regulatory hurdles tied to its receivership status.

“The Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) strategic support deserves recognition for its crucial role in stabilizing Arik Air, ensuring its continued operations, and maintaining confidence among passengers. Without AMCON’s intervention, the airline would not have remained a key player in Nigeria’s aviation industry. Arik Air’s ability to thrive under receivership reaffirms AMCON’s commitment to preserving jobs, sustaining economic contributions, and ensuring safe, reliable airline services for Nigerian travelers.”

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

During the proceedings, the second prosecution witness, Mr. Augustine Obikwe, a retired Union Bank official, sought to tender a document he obtained from the EFCC.

However, the defense team objected to its admissibility, arguing that it was neither signed nor properly certified.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Dada ruled that the witness was not part of the EFCC’s investigative team or an AMCON official, making him ineligible to tender the document.

Citing Section 104(1) of the Evidence Act, she held that only an officer with the original document had the authority to certify it.

“It is trite that the party must lay the foundation for any document sought to be tendered under the Evidence Act. Public documents must be certified by a public official,” the judge stated, rejecting the document.

Led in evidence by prosecution counsel Dr. Wahab Shittu (SAN), the witness, Mr. Obikwe, recounted his role in the financing of Arik Air’s aircraft procurement. He disclosed that he had worked in the United States from 1980 to 1982 before serving as the Group Executive Director of Corporate and International Banking at Union Bank.

He explained that Union Bank acted as a guarantor for Arik Air in securing funding for the acquisition of five aircraft—three Boeing 737-800 and two Airbus 340-500 planes—through export credit agencies, including US EXIM Bank, Coface of Germany, and the Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD) of the UK.

“Union Bank did not commit any money for the guarantee of the 85 percent. The three Boeing 737-800 were used for local operations, while the widebody aircraft were deployed to New York and London,” Obikwe testified.

He further noted that until his retirement from Union Bank in August 2009, Arik Air had never defaulted on its loan repayments.

During the hearing, the prosecution sought to tender a report from a meeting held by stakeholders in London. However, the defense team, led by Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) and Mr. Olalekan Ojo (SAN), objected on the grounds that the document was neither signed nor dated.

Ojo (SAN) argued that the document lacked authenticity, while Osipitan (SAN) questioned its origin, emphasizing that only original copies could be certified under the law.

Despite the objections, prosecution counsel Shittu (SAN) insisted on its relevance, stating, “Even if the document was stolen, in as much as it is relevant to the case, my lord, it is admissible in the law court.”

Justice Dada ruled in favor of the defense, maintaining that the document could not be admitted as evidence due to improper certification and the fact that the witness was not an EFCC investigative officer.

Following this ruling, the court adjourned the trial to May 19, 2025, for further proceedings.

The court also ordered winding up of the company.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Rahman Oshodi gave the order in a judgment in Lagos.

The judgment followed guilty plea by Umaru Hamidu-Modibbo, the chairman of the company, who represented the company.

The chairman pleaded guilty to an amended six-count charge brought against Sigma Golf by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The charge bothered on conspiracy to steal, stealing, transfer of property derived from stealing with the aim of concealing the origin and evade the legal consequences.

Sigma Golf had entered a plea bargain agreement with the EFCC.

The company was arraigned alongside a former Managing Director of Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru.

While Sigma Golf pleaded guilty to the six-count charge, Kuru pleaded not guilty.

Oshodi held that he was satisfied that Sigma Golf admitted guilt of its own volition.

He said:

“I am satisfied that the second defendant was aware of the nature of the amended information and the consequences of the plea.

“All its rights, title and interest in the 6,250,000,000 units of Keystone Bank’s ordinary shares of N1.00 each shall be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria represented by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

“In respect of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the complainant agrees not to pursue criminal charges both now and in the future against Alhaji Umaru Hamidu-Modibbo and Sigma Golf Nig. Ltd.”

The judge also held that Hamidu-Modibbo agreed to fully cooperate with EFCC in any ongoing or future investigations relating to the matter, including providing truthful testimony if required.

The EFCC had stated that Kuru, Hamidu-Modibbo, Ifie Sekino (still at large) and Sigma Golf, sometime in 2016, conspired to steal by dishonestly converting N20 billion, property of AMCON, through Heritage Bank Ltd. to the use of Sigma Golf for acquisition of Keystone Bank Ltd.

The commission also stated that Sigma Golf and the others transfered N10 billion derived directly from stealing with the aim of concealing the origin of the said sum and evade the legal consequences.

EFCC lead counsel, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), told the court that the commission agreed with Sigma Golf on the plea bargain in accordance with legal principles, justice and public policy.

Oyedepo submitted that the terms of the plea bargain agreement included the company pleading guilty to all the six counts and winding up.

The chairman and the legal representative of Sigma Golf, Mr David Idemu, confirmed to the court that the plea bargain agreement was made voluntarily.

Kuru’s lawyer, Mr Olasupo Shasore (SAN), did not oppose the agreement.

Oshodi consequently convicted Sigma Golf and adopted the terms of the agreement.

The judge earlier granted Kuru bail in the sum of N50 million with two sureties, who must swear to an affidavit of means.

The sureties must also provide evidence of tax payment in the last three years, according to the judge.

AMCON also said that its intervention in the troubled Arik Air in February 2017, saved the carrier from liquidation, but vowed that it would ensure the recovery of the total debts owed to the corporation by various business organisations including those owned by Sir Johnson Arumem-Ikhide irrespective of the orchestrated blackmail.

Mr. Jude Nwauzor, the head of Corporate Communications Department of AMCON, stated these on Friday in Lagos while presenting the facts to the aviation correspondents.

AMCON, a debt recovery agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria had watched as several commentators, and writers spread skewed and misguided reports on different media platforms, which does not explain the sorry status of Arik Air before AMCON’s the Federal Government of Nigeria mandated AMCON to intervene in the airline.

Giving the breakdown of the total debts, Nwauzor informed that Arik as of December 2024, owed AMCON N227,637,469,394.34 billion; Rockson Engineering, N163,502,837, 397.75 billion, while Ojemai Farms owed the corporation another N14, 031, 457, 980.71 billion, totaling N455, 171, 764, 772.80. Nwauzor also said that Arumem-Ikhide in some of its agreements with AMCON, agreed to the debts owed to the government agency, and signed restructured agreements on payback, but failed to honour his agreements.

AMCON insisted that despite the campaign of calumny against it, it would ensure the debts were recovered and return the companies to profitability. AMCON insisted that it didn’t take over the running of Arik Air by fiat as claimed in some quarters, but the banks, including Union Bank and Bank PHB (now Keystone Bank), Zenith, Access, Standard Chattered, Afexim, which the airline owed billions of naira, sold the non-performing loans of Arik to AMCON.

He insisted that the takeover followed all the due processes and in accordance with the Act setting up AMCON, and the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. According to Nwauzor, AMCON had been part of Arik Air since 2011 but was compelled to take over the company in 2017 through the appointment of a receiver manager after several interventions failed.

He emphasised that the AMCON Amendment Act, 2021 empowers the corporation to, inter alia, take possession, manage, or sell all properties traced to debtors, whether such asset or property is used as security/collateral for obtaining the loan in particular.

He explained that the receiver manager also had the option of either managing or selling off the assets of a debtor company like Arik Air, but AMCON was mandated to ensure that the airline did not die by the Federal Government.

He said:

“If you recall, at the time, there were not so many of these airlines that we have today like Air Peace, United Nigeria, Green Africa, Max Air,  Value Jet, etc, so, the Federal Government at the time, mandated AMCON to save the over 1,500 jobs that would have been lost if the airline was liquidated and the best approach was to appoint a receiver manager to manage the airline. That was the mandate of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

“As you know, AMCON is owned by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Ministry of Finance and is guided by the AMCON Act drafted by the National Assembly, and signed into law by the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That was how AMCON came to be. What that means is that you cannot play outside the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the AMCON Act, and that the Corporation since inception is guided by this. If push comes to shove, AMCON still has the option to liquidate the company and any other debtor organizations. But, we are still today managing Arik, which was insolvent in 2015 and 2016 before AMCON stepped in.”

He pointed out that AMCON since 2017 when it intervened in the airline, had been putting in money to sustain its operations, yet was unable to recover its investment in the airline. AMCON expressed that it was because the promoters of Arik Air could not pay back the debts it owed several financial institutions either in the country or beyond, stressing that this compelled the banks to sell the non-performing loans to AMCON.

He further debunked the claim that Arik Air had 30 operating aircraft at the time of AMCON intervention in 2017, maintaining that most of the aircraft claimed to be in the fleet of the airline were either abandoned, scrapped, or inactive at the time of intervention.

An investigation by our correspondent revealed that only eight of the 30 aircraft were operational at the time of AMCON intervention.

He insisted that no matter the blackmail, AMCON would ensure the recovery of the debts irrespective of who was involved. Adding that by the time AMCON intervened in Arik Air in 2017, there was zero naira to run the airline, as both KPMG and PwC reports pronounced the airline insolvent pre-receivership.

“We did the forensic evaluation of Arik Air in 2015 and 2016; the report wrote off Arik as an insolvent company. The experts proposed that AMCON should liquidate the airline and move away. Even, the liquidation would not have recovered a fraction of the debts,” he said.