Counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Dr Wahab Shittu (SAN), on Tuesday alleged misleading media reports of the fraud trial of a former Managing Director of Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, and four others.
Kuru and the others are charged with fraud and theft to the tune of N76 billion and $31.5 million.
The other defendants are a former Receiver Manager of Arik Air Ltd., Kamilu Omokide; the airline’s Chief Executive Officer, Roy Ilegbodu; Union Bank; and Super Bravo Ltd.
They are facing a five-count charge bordering on fraud theft, abuse of office, and dishonest acquisition of property.
Union Bank is separately charged on one count of making false statements to a public officer.
Freedomonline reports that when the case was called on Tuesday, Shittu expressed dissatisfaction at what he described as persistent misleading media coverage of the trial.
According to him, a particular report online is misleading and misrepresents the court’s proceedings, creating a false impression of a conflict between the court and AMCON, among others.
He said: “The publication is worrisome, my lord, and there have been several instances of reporting what the witness never actually said.
“These reports paint a picture of hostility between AMCON, Union Bank, Arik and the court, which is not true.
“Foreigners are closely monitoring this case, and I urge your lordship to ensure the integrity of court proceedings is preserved through accurate reporting.
“This case is not a battle between AMCON and Arik Air and should not be portrayed as such.”
Meanwhile, at the continuation of cross-examination of the third prosecution witness, Mr Muhammed Jega, he testified that he was not among the signatories to the Loan Purchase Agreement between Union Bank and Arik Air.
Jega, the former Executive Director of Credits at AMCON, was cross-examined by counsel to Union Bank, Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN).
Ojo questioned the authenticity of the signatures on the agreement, and the witness said that the two individuals who signed the document were professionals.
Jega pointed out irregularities in the pagination, noting that the document began with page eight.
“I doubt if my colleagues could have signed this agreement.
“Therefore, I disagree that they signed the agreement the way it is shown to me,” he said.
Ojo, however, told the witness to confirm that each page of the agreement was duly certified by AMCON.
Jega further told the court that his extra-judicial statement dated June 19, 2023, was based on questions posed by EFCC and his knowledge of the matter.
Regarding a meeting held in London on Feb. 4, 2011, with foreign lenders, Jega explained that it was convened at the instance of Union Bank.
He said that AMCON was merely invited.
When asked whether the purpose of the London meeting was to inform foreign lenders that AMCON had taken over the guarantee of Arik Air’s loan, Jega said that Union Bank representatives did not disclose such information at the meeting.
When asked if AMCON representatives disclosed at the meeting that they had taken over the loan, Jega replied in the negative.
On whether he ever returned to the EFCC to make an additional statement, he said, ‘No’.
“My Lord, there was no need to do that in respect of the Arik Air loan.
“What was purchased by AMCON was the guarantee and the indemnity,” Jega said.
Justice Mojisola Dada adjourned the case until Oct. 15 for continuation of trial.
