Arik Air suit: Court rejects documents over improper identification

Justice Mojisola Dada of a Lagos Special Offences Court, Ikeja, has refused the document sought to be tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the ongoing trial of a former Managing Director of Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, and four others.

The EFCC had alleged that the defendants defrauded Arik Air of N76 billion and $31.5 million, respectively.

Other defendants in the fraud trial instituted by the EFCC are 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.

However, after taking arguments and submissions from counsel on both sides, the judge held that the witness in the box was not among the team that investigated the matter.

She said, “It is trite that the party must lay a foundation on the document sought to be tendered under the Evidence Act. It is true that a public document must be certified by a public official.”

After citing various decided cases of higher courts, the judge refused the admissibility of the document by the witness, saying, “The witness in the box is not a member of AMCON and does not have the original document. The issue of proper certification is important, as laid down by the law. The document cannot be tendered by this witness.”

Earlier in the proceeding, Dr. Wahab Shittu (SAN) announced his appearance for the prosecution, while Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) represented the first and third defendants. The second defendant’s counsel, Olasupo Sashore (SAN), and Mr. Olalekan Ojo (SAN) announced their appearances for the fourth defendant, while the fifth defendant was represented by (incomplete).

The prosecution witness, Mr. Austine Obigwe, led in evidence by Shittu, told the court that he was a Group Executive Director in Corporate and International Banking at Union Bank.

He told the court that he was a board member and handled transactions with the US EXIM Bank, for which Union Bank provided a guarantee

He said, “We also had a second transaction for the two wide-body aircraft, long-haul A340-500, and Chemist of Germany Coface of ECGB of the UK. The three of them are also shareholders. The two Boeings were financed by the Export Credit Agencies. There was no payment. Union Bank did not commit any money for the guarantee of the 85 percent.”

The witness further told the court that the two wide-body aircraft included one flying from Nigeria to New York. “Unfortunately, since Arik stopped flying to New York, no other Nigerian airline goes directly. Until I left the bank in 2009, all facilities extended to Arik were performing; there was no default.”

Obigwe, a former staff member of Union Bank, said that the bank stood in as a guarantor to Arik Air to procure five aircraft—three Boeing 737-800 and two Airbus 340-500 aircraft.

He further stated that the three B737-800 aircraft were used for local operations, while the wide-body aircraft were deployed to New York in the United States and London in the United Kingdom.

READ ALSO:Arik Air: A promising airline facing turbulent debt crisis

However, when the prosecution counsel sought to tender a report of a meeting held by the stakeholders in London, the defense team objected to its admissibility.

Ojo (SAN) argued that the documents were not signed and undated.

Osipitan questioned the genuineness of the document and asked the prosecution to establish where the document was sourced from.

He emphasized that what the law expects to be certified are original copies of documents.

Shittu (SAN) submitted that the document was relevant to the case at hand, irrespective of its status.

“Even if the document was stolen, as long as it is relevant to the case, my lord, it is admissible in the law court.”

Justice Dada, in her ruling, refused the admissibility of the document for lack of proper identification. She held that the document could not be tendered by the witness, as he was not one of the EFCC investigation officers.

She subsequently adjourned the case to May 19, 2025, for the continuation of the trial.