The Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja has granted the former Managing Director of AMCON, Ahmed Kuru, permission to travel abroad for urgent medical treatment.
Justice Mojisola Dada also ruled that the defendant’s international passport be released to enable him to travel to London, United Kingdom, for treatment.
Though the nature of the illness was not disclosed in court, counsel to the defendant, Oyinkan Badejo-Okusanya, SAN designate, had told the judge that the ex parte application for her client to be allowed to travel abroad disclosed facts that necessitated “extreme urgency”.
Counsel to the EFCC, Wahab Shittu (SAN), had no objection to the application. However, he raised an alarm that the anti-graft Commission has an intelligence report of attempts by the 1st and 3rd defendants to dispose of some of the aircraft associated with Arik Air, the subject matter of the criminal proceedings.
He wondered if the travel application was not an alibi to travel and sell some of the aircraft, which are said to be in France, but urged the court to order status quo ante bellum and to determine the application on its merits.
The first defendant in the case is Kamilu Omokide, the former Receiver Manager of Arik Air Limited. The third defendant is Captain Roy Ilegbodu, Arik Air’s Chief Executive Officer. The former AMCON MD, Ahmed Kuru, is listed as the second defendant.
The other defendants are Union Bank of Nigeria PLC and another company, Super Bravo Limited.
While Badejo-Okusanya, counsel to Kuru, noted that the alarm sounded by the EFCC counsel did not refer to her client nor affect his application to travel to the UK and not France, counsel to Union Bank, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the EFCC’s alarm, describing it as mere speculation. He submitted that there was no proof of any intelligence report before the court.
He also insisted that his client was a responsible corporate organisation that would not be involved in anything unethical.
After hearing from all parties, the judge noted the concerns raised by the EFCC counsel but declined to issue any restraining orders to preserve the assets, as no documents were exhibited before the court to warrant the granting of such orders.