Appeal Court vacates order freezing 124 bank accounts ‘linked to’ Aisha Achimugu

The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has set aside the order freezing the bank accounts of Aisha Achimugu, a businesswoman and founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd, along with those of companies linked to her.

In a unanimous ruling delivered on Wednesday, a three-member panel of the appellate court nullified the ex parte interim order earlier issued by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025, which froze 124 bank accounts associated with Achimugu.

The panel comprised Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani, and Eleojo Enenche.

The appeal was filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) following the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on August 27, 2025.

**Judgment of the lower court**

On April 10, 2025, Justice Turaki Adamu of the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt granted an interim order freezing 124 accounts linked to Achimugu and directed banks to halt outward transactions on the accounts. The order followed an application by the EFCC.

Court documents indicated that on May 25, 2025, Achimugu filed a motion seeking to vacate the order, arguing that it amounted to an abuse of court process.

She also informed the court that the EFCC, through a letter dated April 24, 2025 (exhibit FF2), directed SunTrust Bank to transfer funds from one of the frozen accounts to a Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account while the freezing order was still in effect.

In his ruling on August 27, 2025, Justice Adamu declared the transfer of N1.8 billion from account number 0001313173 domiciled in SunTrust Bank to the CBN recovery account illegal and ordered that the funds be reversed immediately.

**EFCC’s appeal**

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the EFCC filed an appeal on three grounds. The commission argued that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to sit and deliver judgment during its annual long vacation, that it denied the EFCC fair hearing by granting reliefs not sought, and that it failed to properly evaluate affidavit evidence concerning the accounts.

In response, Achimugu’s counsel maintained that the lower court acted within its powers in ordering the reversal of “illegally transferred funds,” describing the directive as a valid consequential order.

**Judgment of the appeal court**

In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Sirajo, the appellate court held that delivering a reserved judgment during the court’s annual vacation “does not constitute the conduct of general legal business and does not occasion a miscarriage of justice.”

The court dismissed the EFCC’s claim of denial of fair hearing, noting that both parties had the opportunity to present their cases.

The court observed that a “reasonable person looking at the exchange of these detailed further affidavits would conclude that both parties were fully heard on the issue of transfer of funds”.

On whether the reversal order exceeded the reliefs sought, the court held that a court which issues a freezing order retains the authority to make further orders necessary to preserve its decision.

“An order compelling the reversal of funds moved out of a frozen account during the pendency of the freezing order, and without leave, is a consequential order incidental to the preservation of the res,” the judge ruled.

However, the appellate court found inconsistencies in the lower court’s findings regarding the accounts. It noted that the accounts referenced in the freezing order were current accounts with relatively smaller balances, while the N1.8 billion in question was held in a different account not covered by the initial order.

The court held that the appeal would have failed if the account containing the N1.8 billion had been included in the original freezing order.

“I find that the material before the court did not establish that the funds transferred under Exhibit FF2 emanated from any account frozen by the order of 10th April 2025,” the judge said.

Consequently, the appellate court set aside the order directing the reversal of the N1.8 billion transferred to the CBN/EFCC recovery account.

The court clarified, however, that its decision does not validate the EFCC’s action in directing the transfer of the funds.

**Ex parte order must be temporary**

On the substantive issue, the appellate court ruled that allowing an ex parte freezing order to remain in force for over 15 months constitutes an abuse of court process and undermines the rule of law.

It stressed that such orders are temporary measures intended to preserve funds pending the hearing of a motion on notice.

“In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The first and second issues are resolved against the appellant (EFCC),” the court held.

“The third issue is resolved in the appellant’s favour. In the final analysis, the ruling of the trial Court directing the reversal of N1,800,000,000.00 is set aside on the ground of lack of proper evaluation of evidence.

“Accordingly, the ex-parte interim freezing order granted by the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Division, on 10th April, 2025 in Suit No. FHC/PH/MISC/178/2025, restricting and freezing the bank accounts of the Respondent, Aisha Achimugu Sulaiman, and corporate entities linked to her, is hereby discharged and vacated in its entirety.”