Tension gripped the Ikeja Special Offences Division of the Lagos High Court on Tuesday as the ongoing trial involving Arik Air, Union Bank Plc, and others took a dramatic twist when a key prosecution witness alleged forgery of a defence document.
The third prosecution witness, Mr. Abbas Jega, a former Executive Director of Credit at the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), disowned a document tendered by the defence, describing it as falsified.
Jega made the revelation while testifying before Justice Mojisola Dada in the case titled Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Union Bank Plc, Kamilu Alaba Omokide & 3 Ors (Charge No. ID/24942C/2024).
Witness Disowns Defence Exhibit
During cross-examination by Mr. Olalekan Ojo, counsel to the 4th defendant, Jega identified Exhibit P3—a document central to the defence’s case—as a forgery.
According to him, the document bore a 2009 date, a full year before AMCON was established by law in 2010.
“That document cannot be mine,” Jega told the court. “It was dated 2009, but I only joined AMCON on November 4, 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, a crucial part of the defence’s argument regarding the loans later acquired by AMCON.
Jega stated that although the document was among investigative records, its date made it “inherently invalid and suspect,” since it predated both AMCON’s existence and his tenure.
Courtroom Tension and Apology
Tension heightened when the defence counsel accused Jega of bias in favour of AMCON.
Lead prosecutor Dr. Wahab Shittu (SAN) objected immediately, citing Sections 228 and 229 of the Evidence Act, and described the accusation as “offensive and unprofessional.”
Justice Dada promptly reprimanded the defence counsel, warning against attempts to intimidate witnesses.
Mr. Ojo later apologised to both the court and the witness, retracting his remark.
AMCON’s Loan Acquisition and Clawback
Earlier in his testimony, Jega explained AMCON’s acquisition of Arik Air’s non-performing obligations from Union Bank, totaling ₦71.02 billion, comprising ₦37.1 billion in direct loans and ₦33.8 billion in guarantees.
He said AMCON initially relied on Union Bank’s representations but later exercised its statutory clawback rights when it discovered discrepancies.
“AMCON found that some assets Union Bank sold as loans were actually guarantees,” he said. “When that became clear, AMCON reclaimed them under the Act.”
He further noted that limited manpower and infrastructure at AMCON’s inception hindered full verification of loan details, prompting later reviews and corrections.
By 2014, AMCON had consolidated all of Arik Air’s bank obligations, including a ₦14.6 billion facility from Bank PHB (now Keystone Bank).
He emphasized that all transactions followed the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) guidelines for Eligible Banking Assets, restricted to non-performing or high-risk facilities.
Defence Argument and Witness Clarification
The defence argued that Arik Air’s debts stemmed from crystallized foreign-backed guarantees, contending that once Union Bank settled foreign lenders, the obligations naturally became Arik’s loans.
Jega agreed with the principle but clarified that AMCON’s later findings revealed inadequate collateralization. Rather than pursue criminal sanctions, AMCON sought regulatory remedies through the CBN.
He reiterated that AMCON never acquired performing loans, maintaining compliance with both the AMCON Act and CBN’s prudential rules.
The court adjourned the matter until November 28 and December 8, 2025, for continuation of trial.
