Alleged Fraud: Court sets aside arrest warrant against ex-AMCON MD, Kuru

Justice Mojisola Dada of a Lagos Special Offences Court, Ikeja, has set aside a bench warrant issued against the former Managing Director of Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, in the alleged Arik Airline N76 billion and $31.5 million fraud.

The judge set aside the bench warrant in a criminal suit filed against him and others by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the alleged fraud.

The court had, on December 3, issued a bench warrant against the former AMCON MD due to his absence in court for arraignment.

Other defendants are: former Receiver Manager of Arik Airline Ltd, Kamilu Omokide; Chief Executive Officer of the airline, Captain Roy Ilegbodu; Union Bank Limited; and Super Bravo Limited.

The defendants were to be arraigned on allegations of theft, abuse of office, making false statements to a public officer, and stealing by dishonestly taking the property of another, as proffered against them by the EFCC.

However, Justice Dada set aside the bench warrant against the second defendant, following his presence in court yesterday and a motion on notice filed by his counsel, Mr. Olasupo Shasore (SAN).

READ ALSO: AMCON’s intervention returns Aero to profitability, says Alade

Dada, in her bench ruling, set aside the bench warrant in view of the second defendant’s presence in court and adjourned the case until Jan. 20, 2025, the earlier scheduled date for arraignment.

“In view of the attendance of the second defendant in court and the undertaking signed by the learned silk to ensure his attendance in court at any given time, and no objection by the prosecution, the second defendant’s application of motion on notice is hereby granted, and the bench warrant is set aside,” the judge said.

Earlier, Shasore, in his motion on notice dated December 12, had taken an undertaking and assured the court that he would produce his client, the second defendant, for arraignment on January 20, 2025, and also ensure that he attended his trial.

The prosecution counsel, Dr. Wahab Shittu (SAN), did not object to the application since the counsel to the second defendant had signed an undertaking to produce the defendant for arraignment.

He said that if the senior lawyer was assuring the court of producing the second defendant on January 20 for his arraignment, he would not be objecting to the application.

“We could not contact him the way others were contacted, and his counsel has signed an undertaking that he will produce him, knowing the consequences of the undertaking. The prosecution will not be objecting to the revocation of the bench warrant against the second defendant.”