A FORMER Zonal Director of the Lagos Zonal Directorate 2 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Bawa Kaltungo, on Tuesday told a Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, that investigators did not trace any part of the alleged ₦76 billion and $31.5 million fraud to the personal accounts of former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru, or the third defendant, Capt Roy Ilegbodu.
News Point Nigeria reports that Kaltungo made the disclosure during cross-examination by counsel to Kuru and Ilegbodu, Taiwo Osipitan (SAN), before Justice Mojisola Dada.
Kuru is standing trial alongside Kamilu Alaba Omokide, Capt Ilegbodu, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, and Super Bravo Limited on a six-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing, and abuse of office.
During questioning by the defence, Kaltungo admitted that no financial proceeds from the alleged fraud were directly linked to Kuru.
When asked whether he personally traced any financial benefit to the former AMCON boss, the witness replied, “I did not trace it.”
Pressed further on whether there was concrete evidence that Kuru personally received funds from the transactions under investigation, Kaltungo stated, “What I know is that he benefited through shares.”
The defence also challenged the EFCC’s findings regarding the management of Arik Air during its receivership.
Responding to allegations that ₦49 billion realised from the sale of Arik Air assets by AMCON was used to establish NG Eagle, Kaltungo said the information was obtained from Arik Air’s Chief Financial Officer and later corroborated by EFCC investigations.
According to him, “The ₦49bn belonged to Arik Air and was generated while the airline was under receivership, but it was diverted and not used to service the airline’s loan obligations.”
However, under further scrutiny, the witness admitted that one of the individuals alleged to have benefited from Arik Air’s management, identified as Mogaji, was not interviewed because he was outside Nigeria at the time.
He told the court that Mogaji later sent an email confirming receipt of benefits and said the correspondence formed part of the EFCC’s report.
But when asked to identify where the alleged email appeared in the report before the court, Kaltungo was unable to do so, saying he would provide the evidence later.
The defence subsequently tendered internal Arik Air documents showing that the airline approved travel and related expenses for Mogaji, who served on its Advisory Committee headed by Dr Demuren.
Kaltungo was also confronted with a letter allegedly written by AMCON to the EFCC chairman approving certain decisions taken in relation to Arik Air’s management.
The witness said he was unaware of the correspondence.
“It was addressed to the EFCC chairman, and the commission does not respond to all correspondence it receives,” he said.
He further confirmed that Omokide, the first defendant and former Receiver-Manager of Arik Air, held only one share in NG Eagle and did not derive any personal financial benefit from the airline’s sale.
Prof. Osipitan questioned why the anti-graft agency proceeded with criminal charges without joining AMCON as a party, despite the commission’s acknowledgement that no direct monetary benefit had been traced to the accused persons.
Responding, Kaltungo said, “AMCON is an institution, and the first defendant acted in his capacity as Managing Director of the corporation.”
He maintained that the EFCC investigation was initiated following petitions and supported by documentary and technical evidence.
According to him, “The commission acted within the ambit of its statutory mandate in probing allegations involving company officials, shareholders and corporate transactions said to have raised concerns of abuse of office, unauthorised dealings and financial impropriety.”
The witness further explained that EFCC investigations are not commenced arbitrarily, noting that petitions received by the agency are subjected to preliminary review before investigative steps are taken.
He said several complaints and correspondence from individuals, shareholders, and corporate representatives prompted the investigation into the disputed transactions.
Kaltungo insisted that the commission’s findings were based not merely on verbal allegations but on documentary materials, company records, interviews, and other evidence obtained during the probe.
He added that investigators examined shareholder interests, financial approvals, loan monitoring processes, movement of funds, and alleged benefits derived from the transactions under investigation.
Justice Dada subsequently adjourned the matter until June 25 and July 7, 2026, for continuation of cross-examination.