Forgery Allegations Rock Arik Air Trial In Lagos Court As Defence Document Is Challenged By AMCON Witness
Forgery Allegations Rock Arik Air Trial In Lagos Court As Defence Document Is Challenged By AMCON Witness
He asserted that the signature on the document was falsified and noted that it was dated prior to the establishment of AMCON.
Tension filled the courtroom of Hon. Justice Mojisola Dada at the Ikeja Special Offences Division on Tuesday as the prosecution’s third witness, Abbas Jega, challenged a key document submitted by the defence in the high-profile case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Union Bank Plc, Kamilu Alaba Omokide & 3 Ors (Charge No. ID/24942C/2024).
The proceedings took a dramatic turn during Wednesday’s session, marked by sharp exchanges and rigorous cross-examinations, when Jega identified Exhibit P3—a document central to the 4th Defendant’s case—as a forgery. He asserted that the signature on the document was falsified and noted that it was dated prior to the establishment of AMCON.
Under intense questioning from Mr. Olalekan Ojo, counsel for the 4th Defendant, Jega, who previously served as Executive Director, Credit, at AMCON, told the court that he could not have authored Exhibit P3 because it bore a 2009 date, while AMCON was only established by statute in 2010.
“That document cannot be mine,” Jega said. “It is dated 2009, but I was only appointed into AMCON on the 4th of November, 2010. Whoever signed it before then must have forged my name.”
The disputed document reportedly related to an indemnity agreement between Union Bank and Arik Air, an integral element in the defence’s claims concerning the nature of the facilities later acquired by AMCON.
Jega’s testimony dealt a significant blow to the defence narrative, raising concerns that the document may have been fabricated to lend legitimacy to contested loan transactions. He confirmed that while the document is part of investigative records, its temporal impossibility, predating both AMCON’s establishment and his tenure, renders it inherently invalid and suspect.
Cross-examination took a tense turn when the 4th Defendant’s counsel, visibly frustrated by Jega’s firm testimony, accused him of bias and partisanship in favour of Arik Air.
Lead prosecutor Dr. Wahab Shittu, SAN, immediately objected, citing Sections 228 and 229 of the Evidence Act, describing the accusation as “offensive, injurious, and professionally unbecoming.”
Justice Dada swiftly intervened, admonishing the counsel for overstepping ethical boundaries and reminding him of the proper conduct expected during cross-examination. In a rare courtroom moment, Mr. Ojo paused before apologizing to both the court and the witness, effectively retracting his remark.
The court’s firm stance highlighted its intolerance for any attempts to intimidate or blackmail witnesses, particularly in cases involving complex financial transactions and allegations of corporate misrepresentation.
Earlier, Jega provided a detailed account of AMCON’s purchase of Arik Air’s non-performing obligations from Union Bank, covering both loan and guarantee components totaling ₦71,019,875,317.29.
He explained that while the facilities were originally dollar-denominated, AMCON accounted for them in naira. The breakdown included: ₦37.1 billion in direct loans, and ₦33.8 billion in guarantees, some of which were later clawed back after AMCON discovered they were misclassified and insufficiently collateralized.
Jega emphasized that AMCON initially relied on Union Bank’s representations at the time of purchase but later exercised its clawback rights under the AMCON Act upon uncovering misrepresentations.
“AMCON discovered that some of what Union Bank sold as loans were actually guarantees,” he explained. “When that became clear, AMCON had to exercise its right of clawback in line with its statutory powers.”
During the cross-examination by the 5th Defendant, Jega was pressed on whether AMCON had thoroughly verified the nature of the facilities before acquisition. He acknowledged that at AMCON’s inception, limited manpower and infrastructure hindered comprehensive due diligence, which later necessitated the clawback process.
He explained that by February 2011, AMCON had identified misrepresentations by Union Bank and initiated internal reviews. Jega confirmed that all loan purchase interactions between AMCON and Union Bank were formally documented. By 2014, AMCON had fully consolidated Arik Air’s obligations across multiple banks, including a ₦14.6 billion facility from Bank PHB (now Keystone Bank). He reiterated that all transactions adhered to the Central Bank of Nigeria’s definition of Eligible Banking Assets, restricted to non-performing or high-risk facilities.
Defence Line of Questioning: Arik Air’s Default and Union Bank’s Role
The defence sought to suggest that Arik Air’s indebtedness stemmed from crystallized foreign-backed guarantees, arguing that once Union Bank settled the foreign lenders, the obligations naturally became loans owed by Arik Air.
Jega agreed with the principle but clarified that AMCON later discovered inadequate collateral and pursued regulatory remedies rather than criminal sanctions, formally notifying the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). He also confirmed that AMCON did not acquire any performing loans, reaffirming that all purchases complied with the AMCON Act and prudential guidelines set by the CBN.
The court adjourned to November 28 and December 8, 2025, for the continuation of the trial.
