Appeal Court Lifts Freeze on Aisha Achimugu’s Bank Accounts

The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has overturned an interim order freezing the bank accounts of businesswoman and Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Limited founder, Aisha Achimugu, along with accounts belonging to companies linked to her.

In a unanimous judgment delivered by a three-member panel led by Justice Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, the appellate court discharged the ex parte freezing order issued by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025.

The panel, which also included Justices Ishaq Mohammed Sani and Eleojo Enenche, ruled on the appeal arising from the legal dispute between Achimugu and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the freezing of 124 bank accounts allegedly connected to her and associated companies.

The Federal High Court had initially granted the EFCC’s request to temporarily freeze the accounts and directed affected banks to halt all outward transactions pending further proceedings.

Achimugu later challenged the order, arguing that its prolonged enforcement constituted an abuse of court process. She also alleged that despite the freezing order, the EFCC instructed SunTrust Bank to transfer funds from one of the affected accounts into a Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account through a letter dated April 24, 2025.

In August 2025, the Federal High Court ruled that the transfer of ₦1.8 billion from one of the accounts was unlawful and ordered the immediate return of the funds. The EFCC appealed that decision.

The anti-graft agency argued that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to issue its ruling during the court’s annual vacation. It also claimed the trial court granted reliefs that were not specifically requested and failed to properly assess evidence relating to the affected accounts.

Achimugu’s legal team maintained that the lower court acted within its powers by ordering the reversal of the transferred funds, describing the decision as necessary to preserve the integrity of the freezing order.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo dismissed the EFCC’s claims that the court lacked jurisdiction or denied the commission a fair hearing. He held that delivering a reserved judgment during the court vacation did not amount to conducting regular court business and did not prejudice either party.

The appellate court also affirmed that courts have the authority to issue consequential orders to protect assets covered by freezing orders.

However, the panel agreed with the EFCC that the evidence did not establish that the ₦1.8 billion transferred originated from any of the accounts specifically frozen by the April 10, 2025 order.

According to the court, the frozen accounts contained significantly lower balances, while the disputed ₦1.8 billion was linked to different accounts. As a result, it set aside the lower court’s order directing the return of the money, stressing that the decision should not be interpreted as validating the EFCC’s transfer of the funds.

On the broader issue of the frozen accounts, the Court of Appeal ruled that allowing an ex parte freezing order to remain in force for more than 15 months violated the principles of fairness and due process.

The court noted that such orders are meant to be temporary measures designed to preserve disputed funds pending the hearing of substantive applications, not indefinite restrictions.