Court Vacates Freeze on Aisha Achimugu Linked Accounts

(Aisha Achimugu. Photo by Daily Post)

The interim order freezing 124 bank accounts belonging to businesswoman Aisha Achimugu and companies associated with her has been vacated by the Court of Appeal, located in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.

The court determined that allowing the ex parte order to remain in effect for more than 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process.

A three-judge panel of the appellate court, consisting of Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani, and Eleojo Enenche, discharged the interim freezing order issued by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025, in a unanimous ruling on Wednesday.

The appeal arose from a suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, challenging the Federal High Court’s ruling of August 27, 2025.

Justice Turaki Adamu of the Federal High Court had earlier granted the EFCC’s ex parte application freezing 124 bank accounts linked to Achimugu, founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd, and had restrained banks from allowing outward transactions on the accounts.

Achimugu subsequently applied to set aside the freezing order, arguing that it amounted to an abuse of court process.

She also told the court that despite the subsisting order, the EFCC had directed SunTrust Bank, through a letter dated April 24, 2025, to transfer funds from one of the frozen accounts to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account.

On August 27, 2025, the Federal High Court ruled that the transfer of N1.8 billion from account number 0001313173 domiciled in SunTrust Bank to the CBN recovery account was unlawful and ordered that the money be returned immediately.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the EFCC appealed on three grounds, contending that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to deliver its ruling during the annual long vacation, that it was denied fair hearing when the court granted an unsolicited relief, and that the court failed to properly evaluate affidavit evidence regarding the affected accounts and their balances.

In response, Achimugu’s legal team maintained that the trial court acted within its powers in ordering the reversal of funds allegedly transferred in violation of its subsisting freezing order.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo held that delivering a reserved judgment during the court’s annual vacation does not amount to conducting general legal business and does not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

The appellate court also dismissed the EFCC’s claim that it was denied fair hearing, noting that both parties had filed additional affidavits addressing the disputed transfer of funds before the lower court.

The court further held that, in principle, a court that grants a freezing order has the power to issue consequential orders necessary to preserve the subject matter of a case.

However, on the specific issue of the N1.8 billion transfer, the appellate court found that the account from which the money was moved was not among those covered by the freezing order issued on April 10, 2025.

The court noted that the frozen accounts included current accounts belonging to Drive.FGC.Net and Felak Concepts Ltd, with balances of N50.5 million and N16.2 million respectively, whereas the N1.8 billion was held in a fixed deposit account, alongside N7.79 billion in separate internal ledger accounts.

It held that the trial judge failed to establish how a current account with a balance of about N50 million could have generated the N1.8 billion transferred to the recovery account.

Consequently set aside the lower court’s order directing the reversal of the funds, holding that the evidence did not show the money originated from an account covered by the freezing order.

The appellate court, however, clarified that this did not validate the EFCC’s action in directing the transfer.

On Achimugu’s substantive application, the Court of Appeal held that allowing the interim ex parte freezing order to remain in force for more than 15 months was contrary to the purpose of such orders, which are meant to preserve funds only for a limited period pending the hearing of a motion on notice.

The court consequently discharged and vacated in its entirety the interim freezing order issued by the Federal High Court on April 10, 2025, against Achimugu and the corporate entities linked to her.