Justice Dada ruled that the witness, not being part of the EFCC’s investigative team or an AMCON official, could not tender the document.
BY ANTHONY OMOH
Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos Special Offences Court, Ikeja, yesterday rejected a document presented by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the ongoing trial of former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) Ahmed Kuru and four others. The defendants are accused of defrauding Arik Air of N76 billion and $31.5 million.
Other defendants include former receiver manager of Arik Air Limited Mr. Kamilu Omokide, Arik Air’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Capt. Roy Ilegbodu, Union Bank Limited, and Super Bravo Limited. During the proceedings, the second prosecution witness, retired Union Bank official Mr. Augustine Obikwe, attempted to tender a document obtained from the EFCC. However, the defense team objected, arguing it was neither signed nor properly certified.
Justice Dada ruled that the witness, not being part of the EFCC’s investigative team or an AMCON official, could not tender the document. Citing Section 104(1) of the Evidence Act, she stated that only an officer with the original document could certify it. “Public documents must be certified by a public official,” she emphasized, rejecting the document.
Led by prosecution counsel Dr. Wahab Shittu (SAN), Mr. Obikwe recounted his role in financing Arik Air’s aircraft procurement. He disclosed that Union Bank acted as a guarantor for Arik Air in securing funding for five aircraft—three Boeing 737-800 and two Airbus 340-500 planes. “Union Bank did not commit any money for the guarantee,” he testified, adding that Arik Air never defaulted on repayments during his tenure.
The prosecution also sought to tender a report from a London stakeholders’ meeting. However, the defense team, led by Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) and Mr. Olalekan Ojo (SAN), objected, citing lack of authenticity and proper certification. Ojo (SAN) argued the document lacked credibility, while Osipitan (SAN) questioned its origin.
Despite objections, Shittu (SAN) insisted on its relevance, stating, “Even if the document was stolen, it is admissible if relevant.” Justice Dada ruled in favor of the defense, rejecting the document due to improper certification. The court adjourned the trial to May 19, 2025, for further proceedings.
